Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism
“ Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely
solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather
Going One God
Further
than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts Atheism
science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what
we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas
for their own sake.
”
—Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

“ Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

” Key Concepts
—Anonymous
▪ Atheism
▪ Agnosticism
Atheism (from the Greek a-, meaning "without", and theos, meaning "God") is the
▪ Antitheism
absence of belief in the existence of Gods.[1] Theos includes the Abrahamic
▪ FAQ for the Newly
YHWH(s), Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and every other deity from A to Z[2] Deconverted
(and 0-9, !, ", #, $ or any other character, obviously). For the definition of atheism,
Articles to not believe
the terms "God" and "a god" are used interchangeably as there is no difference
in
between a monotheistic deity and a polytheistic pantheon of deities when it comes
to complete disbelief in them.[1] This also intends to ignore the privileged position ▪ Protestant vs.
Yahweh has held in English grammar. Most atheists also do not believe in anything Catholic atheism
supernatural or paranormal (someone like this would be considered a naturalist or ▪ Rational Response
materialist).[1] Squad
▪ Militant atheism
▪ Project Reason
Contents Notable heathens

Atheism ▪ Christopher
Hitchens
Types of atheism
▪ Ian Plimer
Implicit vs. explicit atheism
▪ Alan Turing
Implicit atheism
▪ James Randi
Explicit atheism
v - t - e ([Link]
Weak vs. strong atheism g/w/[Link]?title=Templat
e:Atheism&action=edit)
Weak atheism
Strong atheism
Apatheism
Antitheism
Post-theism
Why are people atheists?
Burden of proof
Logical
Evidential
Experiential
Atheist clergy
Who are atheists?
Demographics
Education and IQ
Income
Race, gender, sexuality

1 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

Atheism in history
Misconceptions about atheists
Atheism as an organized religion
Atheists just hate God
Atheists have no morals
Atheism = communism
Misconceptions of definition
Opposition to the term "atheism"
Religious views on atheism
Atheistic view of the Bible
Persecution of atheists
In Islamic theocracies
In the United States
In Europe
In Australia
Why even argue with theists?
See also
Essays by RationalWikians
Want to read this in another language?
External links
National atheism organizations
Notes
References

Atheism
“ We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just
go one god further.
”
—Richard Dawkins[3]

Tied up with some of the more awkward aspects of defining the term "atheist" is the question of what god, or
type of god, is being denied.[1] This is particularly important for those who claim that atheism is supported by
evidence (more specifically, the lack of evidence for a theistic case).[1]

If the god being denied is the interventionist God, whom most theists hold to exist, then the argument against
the existence of this being is easy; the lack of any demonstrable interventions demonstrates the god's lack of
existence. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, if the god being denied is of a less
interventionist, or deist, type god, the above argument regarding evidence doesn't work. Indeed, the only
possible "evidence" for a deist god is the universe's very existence, and most sane people don't tend to deny
the universe exists. On the other hand, as said "evidence" is simply asserted and isn't testable in any way, it is
a lot less than wholly convincing, and we return to "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence."

Whether atheism also requires a person to disbelieve in all other forms of magic, ghosts, or psychic powers is
a question. These are not "gods" in the conventional sense but still supernatural entities or powers. More
"hardline" atheists would insist that disbelief in all things supernatural is mandatory for the label of "atheist."
They would argue that this follows from the fact that atheism is a rational position and that atheists should
take rational positions on other matters. In the case of atheism, what does and does not constitute a "god" can
often be very subjective; the definition could be restricted to monotheistic "creator" gods, expanded to include
all supernatural entities, or used to describe only things that are worshipped or idolized. The variables that
arise when trying to perfectly codify "atheism" are numerous, which fits with its position as a lack of belief.

2 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

However, atheism only makes sense in the context of the ubiquity of religion and theistic belief worldwide. If
religions didn't exist, atheism wouldn't exist, and any discussion of the subject would be inherently
meaningless - the world doesn't feature books, internet debates, and billboard campaigns saying that it's fine
to disbelieve in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot precisely because few, if any, people believe in the teapot.
Therefore a working, albeit still slightly subjective, definition of what constitutes a "god" can be developed
based on the beliefs of self-declared religions of the world. As a thought experiment, we can conceive of a
religion that achieves literal overnight success by promoting some god, Athkel,[note 1] who will become a
worldwide phenomenon tomorrow. An atheist would simply not believe in Athkel tomorrow, despite the fact
they had no belief in them yesterday because it is a self-defined religious deity.

Types of atheism
There are many ways to describe different types of atheism,
some of which are explained below. These shouldn't be read as
factions or sects within atheism in the same way as
denominations and sects within religion,
Protestant/Catholicism in Christianity, Sunni/Shia in Islam,
and their multiple sub-groups, for example. One does not
"join" a group of implicit atheists. Instead of sects that dictate
people's beliefs, these should be taken as models to roughly
describe people's beliefs and attitudes towards belief. There
are many similarities, all of which are included in the blanket
term "atheist." However - as is typical in atheist thought - not
all atheists consider these divisions particularly relevant, Only a little more complicated than "don't believe
in God."
worthwhile, or meaningful.

The commonality among these various modes of atheism is

the statement that no god or gods created natural phenomena such as the existence of life or the universe.
Instead, these are usually explained through science, (usually) without resorting to supernatural explanations.
Morality in atheism is also not based on religious precepts such as divine commandments or revelation
through a holy text - many alternative philosophies exist to derive or explain morality, such as humanism.

Implicit vs. explicit atheism

Implicit atheism

Implicit atheism is simply the state of not holding a belief in any gods. Babies would be implicit atheists since
children don't develop religious beliefs until they are taught them (or arrive at them independently as they
mature).

Explicit atheism

Explicit atheism is a conscious rejection of the belief in gods or their existence. Explicit atheists can be weak
or strong, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.

Weak vs. strong atheism

Weak atheism

“ What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
”
—Christopher Hitchens[5]

“ I only believe 12.5% of the Bible. I am an eighth-theist

”
—Anonymous (and better , that way)

3 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

Weak atheism (sometimes equated with "pragmatic atheism" or "negative atheism") describes the state
of living as if no gods exist. It does not require an absolute statement of God's non-existence. The argument is
based on the fact that there is no solid evidence that gods, spatial teapots, or fairies exist, so we have no
reason to believe in them. This argument could also be classified as extreme agnosticism or "agnostic
atheism" — as it acknowledges the lack of evidence but acts as if there were no gods.

Pragmatic atheists, however, are frequently reluctant to make outright statements like "Gods (or fairies) do
not exist" because of the great difficulties involved in proving the absolute non-existence of anything — the
idea that nothing can be proved is held in the philosophy of Pyrrhonism. Consequently, many pragmatic
atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the
extraordinary concept that gods exist. They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to
provide evidence for the existence of their own deities and that no argument is necessary on the atheist's part
(see null hypothesis).

Strong atheism

Strong atheism (sometimes equated with "theoretical atheism") makes an explicit statement against the
existence of gods. Strong atheists would disagree with weak atheists about the inability to disprove the
existence of gods. Strong atheism specifically combats religious beliefs and other arguments for belief in some
god (or gods), such as Pascal's Wager and argument from design. These arguments tend to demonstrate that
the concept of god is logically inconsistent or incoherent to actively disprove the existence of a god.[6]
Theological noncognitivism, which asserts the meaninglessness of religious language, is an argument
commonly invoked by strong atheists.[note 2] In contrast, weak atheist arguments tend to concentrate on the
evidence (or lack thereof) for god, while strong atheist arguments tend to concentrate on making a positive
case for the non-existence of god.

Apatheism
See the main article on this topic: Apatheism

An apatheist has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist. An
apatheist considers the very question of the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings to
be irrelevant and not worth consideration under any circumstances.

In short: they simply don't care. (Well, okay, they care enough to give themselves a name — so that people
explicitly know what it is they don't care anything about. But that's about it.)

Antitheism
See the main article on this topic: Antitheism

Antitheism is, perhaps surprisingly, technically separate from any and all positions on the existence or non-
existence of any given deity. Antitheism simply argues that a given (or all possible) human implementation of
religious beliefs, metaphysically "true" or not, leads to harmful and undesirable results, either to the adherent,
society, or both. As justification, the antitheists often point to the incompatibility of religion-based morality
with modern humanistic values or the atrocities and bloodshed wrought by religion and religious wars.
Religious moderation, compared to religious extremism, is an example of theistic anti-theism, also known as
dystheism. Dystheism also encompasses questioning the morals even of a deity you believe in, e.g., choosing
to obey commandments on nonviolence over calls to violence from God, despite them both being clearly put
forward by this alleged giver of all morals.

Post-theism
“ God is dead....And we have killed him.
”
—Friedrich Nietzsche

Post-theism is a form of atheism that doesn't so much reject theism as believe it to be obsolete, that belief in
God belongs to a stage of human development now past. The word stems from the Latin post "behind, after,

4 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

afterward" + Greek theos "god" + -ist.

Though the belief system is independent of organized religions, some post-theists posit a specific religion as
formerly useful. A notable example is Frank Hugh Foster, who, in a 1918 lecture, announced that modern
culture had arrived at a "post-theistic stage" in which humanity has taken possession of the powers of agency
and creativity that had formerly been projected upon God. Another instance is Friedrich Nietzsche's
declaration that "God is dead."

Why are people atheists?

“ We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty
humans, and then blames them for His own mistakes.
—Eugene Wesley Roddenberry
”
It is obvious that not all atheists are "disaffected with religion" – many were just never raised with or
indoctrinated with religious beliefs in the first place. Hence a substantial number have nothing to become
disaffected with. However, in those areas where religious belief is essentially taken as normal, there is a high
chance that a person would have been religious before "coming out" as an atheist. As the term "atheist" only
really means something in the context of universal religious belief, being disaffected or unconvinced by
religion could certainly be one factor for many people who declare themselves atheists. Nevertheless, as has
been said previously, there is debate in the atheist community, and not all atheists would agree with all of
these reasons or even consider them relevant to atheism.

One of the major intellectual issues regarding disenchantment with religion is that most world religions insist
that all other faiths are wrong. While some moderate believers may like to take a stance that "all religions are
right, they're just different interpretations", it's undeniable that heresy and apostasy are looked down upon
very harshly in many faiths. This suggests the possibility that no religion is right and further suggests that,
because the vast majority of believers in any faith are born into it, being a member of the "correct" group or
"the elect" is merely an accident of birth in most cases. There is also historical evidence that organized
religion, while professing a peaceful moral code, is often the basis for exclusion and war and a method to
motivate people in political conflicts. The enmity among different religions and even among sects within the
same religion adds credibility to this idea.

Other reasons may be more directly to do with a religion or its specifics - namely (1) the evils that the concept
of religion has produced over the ages, (2) the hypocrisy of professed believers and religious leaders who
exhort their followers to help the poor, love their neighbors and behave morally but become wealthy through
donations to the church and carry love for certain neighbors to an immoral extreme as defined by their own
professed religious beliefs, and (3) the contradiction between talk of a loving god and a world in which
children starve to death and innocent people are tortured and killed. Issues with religion may arise due to the
nature of fundamentalists - insisting that their holy texts are literally true. This leads to attempts by such
fundamentalists to undermine education by censoring scientific knowledge that seems to contradict their
beliefs. Intelligent design is a prominent case (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). Often this doesn't
sit well with moderate believers, especially those who may be on the verge of losing their faith, especially
when the evidence provided by daily experience suggests that there may be no events that cannot be explained
by common sense and scientific study.

Other issues that atheists have with religion involve the characteristics of supposed gods. Atheists sometimes
view the idea that a supreme all-knowing deity would have the narcissistic need to be worshiped and would
punish anyone for worshiping a different god (or none at all) to be perverse.

Lastly, formerly religious atheists often report having had their belief system unsettled by a lack of evidence
supporting the notion of the supernatural.

Burden of proof
“ It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one
another to keep believing when reasons fail.
”

5 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

—Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Arguments related to the burden of proof deal with whether atheists must disprove the existence of gods or
theists must provide evidence in their favor. Conventionally, the burden of proof lies with someone proposing
a positive idea - or as Karl Popper fans would put it, those proposing something must present the idea in such
a way that it would be theoretically falsifiable. By this standard, atheists have no need to prove anything; they
just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. However, the ubiquity of religion
historically and even in some modern societies has often resulted in attempts to shift the burden of proof to
atheists, who would then be bizarrely required to prove a negative. Assuming that God (or gods) exist is
known as presuppositionalism and has always been a key tenet of Christian apologetics but is usually rejected
by more sensible scholars. The absurdity of being asked to prove a negative is demonstrated in Bertrand
Russell's teapot thought experiment - where no matter how hard you look, you can't thoroughly disprove the
belief that a teapot is out there in space, orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This sort of
presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking an atheist to disprove God is an unreasonable request.

Occam's razor can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and assuming that a specific
God exists a priori is a major assumption that should be avoided. In the best case for theists, the lack of
evidence for gods indicates that without supporting evidence, the default position on God must be either
weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. Proponents of atheism argue that the burden of proof
has not been met by those proposing that a god exists, let alone the specific gods described by major religions.

Logical
“ If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they
should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to
show the importance of logic?
”
—Sam Harris

Logical arguments try to show that God cannot possibly exist (at least as described). Barring any escape hatch
arguments like Goddidit, some properties of God are incompatible with each other or known facts about the
world, and thus a creator-god cannot be a logically consistent and existent entity. These arguments are heavily
dependent on the use of common descriptions of the Abrahamic God as a target: things such as omnipotence,
omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. As a result, they are not as useful in refuting the claims of, say,
neopaganism and are also vulnerable to the tactic of moving the goalposts by changing the descriptions of
God.

The omnipotence paradox postulates that true omnipotence is not logically possible or not compatible with
omniscience. This is primarily a logical argument based on whether an omnipotent being could limit its own
power - if yes, it would cease to be omnipotent; if no, it wouldn't be omnipotent in the first place. Hence the
paradox shows, through contradiction, that God cannot exist as usually described.

Other logical arguments prove that god is incompatible with our scientific knowledge of reality. The problem
of evil states that a good god wouldn't permit gratuitous evil, yet such evil occurs, so a good god does not
exist.[7] The argument from design is often given as proof of a creator, but it raises the following logical
question: if the world is so complex that it must have had a creator, then the creator must be at least as
complex and must therefore have a creator, and this would have to have had a more complex creator ad
infinitum. Also, the argument from design does not offer evidence for any specific religion; while it could be
taken as support for the existence of a god or gods, it doesn't argue for the Christian God any more than, say,
the Hindu pantheon.

While believers hasten to point out that their gods don't need to follow logic, let alone the known laws of
physics, this is really a case of special pleading and doesn't so much prove anything itself. Atheists, therefore,
tend to reject these counters to the logical arguments as they mostly beg the question of a creator's existence
and, very arbitrarily, plead that a creator can be exempt from the same logic used to "prove" its existence.

Evidential
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too
”
6 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.

—Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

At the root of the worldview of most atheists is evidence, and atheists point out that sufficient evidence for the
existence of gods is currently very lacking, and thus there is no reason to believe in them. Evidential
arguments are less ambitious than logical arguments because, rather than proving that there is a reason not to
believe in a god, they show that there is no reason to believe in a god (See Burden of proof above). It is
important to remember that what constitutes sufficient evidence can be quite subjective, although rationalism
and science offer some standardization. Various "holy books" exist that testify to the existence of gods and
claim that alleged miracles and personal experiences all constitute evidence in favor of the existence of a god
character. However, atheists reject these as insufficient because the naturalistic explanations (tracing authors
of the holy texts, psychological experiments, scientific experiments to explain experiences, and so on) are
more plausible. Indeed, the existence of plausible naturalistic explanations renders supernatural explanations
obsolete. In addition, these books make claims for various faiths, so to accept the Bible's stories as evidence,
one would have to accept the miracle stories from other religions' holy books.

Atheists often cite evidence that processes attributed to a god might also occur naturally as evidential
arguments. If evolution and the big bang are true, why would a creator god have needed them?[8] Occam's
razor makes theistic explanations less compelling.

Experiential
“ "God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" — Without exception, concepts to
which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never
been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as
an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable,
too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us
thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
—Nietzsche, in Ecce Homo
”
Many atheists argue, in a similar vein to the born-again Christian who "just knows" that God exists, that the
day-to-day experience of the atheist demonstrates quite clearly that God does not. This is because they have
an image in their heads of what this "God" would have to look like, viz., an entity in the vein of the God of the
Old Testament who runs around zapping entire cities, turning people into pillars of salt, and generally
answering people's prayers in flashes of fire and brimstone — or, answering prayers for the victory of a given
football team — but not answering those made on behalf of starving children in the third world.

Atheist clergy
“ Nobody knows for sure how many clergy members are secretly atheists (or are secretly on the
fence, with serious doubts about their religion). But almost everyone I've spoken with in Clergy
Project strongly suspects that the numbers are high.
”
— Greta Christina[9]

Studying religion in depth during training for clerical work can lead a person to examine religious ideas
critically. The study of Christian theology will include the whole of the Bible and include historical
background, which can lead to rational doubt.[9][10]

In 2011, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and
Reason launched a confidential support group for clergy who no longer believe: the Clergy Project. By
December 2012, the group had almost 400 members. One of the founders of the Clergy Project is Dan Barker,
co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who was an evangelical preacher for nineteen years
before becoming an atheist.[11] Gretta Vosper is openly atheist as a minister, and her congregation supports
her.

Freethought Blogger Greta Christina articulates a possible effect of clergy openly leaving Christianity on their
parishioners' beliefs. The more traditional position of clergy is that they are somehow endowed with answers

7 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

to all questions of faith. If these trained religious authorities say they have no answers to normal "Crises of
Faith", even more, if some suggest the most reasonable answer is atheism, lay Christians will find continuing
their belief more difficult.[12] It is worth noting that modern clergy trained in most US or UK universities are
discouraged from claiming to be exempt from such crises of faith and to encourage people to share a "journey
of spiritual discovery". Perhaps atheism must simply be accepted as a potential outcome of that endeavor.

Who are atheists?

Because atheism is effectively a lack of inherent religious or political ideology, there is very little that unifies
all atheists.

That said, atheists do tend to fit a certain profile.

Demographics

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 suggests that the true proportion of atheists is 2%[13][14][15]
to 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain, and 32% in France. A 2004 Telegraph poll found that 44% of
Britons believed in a god, 35% did not, and 21% did not know.[16]

According to a 2012 WIN-Gallup International poll, 13% of the world identifies as "atheist", 23% identifies as
"not religious", and 59% identifies as "religious"; these results were 3% more "atheist", 9% less "religious",
and 6% more "non-religious" than 2005. Of note, in the United States, 13% fewer people identified as
"religious".[17]

Education and IQ

Many studies have shown that some groups with higher intelligence or education have more atheists.[18] A
recent meta-analysis of 39 eligible studies from 1927 to 2002 was published in Mensa Magazine and
concluded that atheists are more likely to be of higher intelligence than their religious counterparts.[19] The
American Sociological Association found that higher intelligence was linked with atheism and liberal political
ideology.[20][21] According to an article in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1998, the belief in a
personal god or afterlife was very low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Only 7%
believed in a personal god compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[22] A 2012 WIN-Gallup
International poll found that people with a college education were 16% less likely to describe themselves as
religious than those without complete high school education.[17] A survey conducted by the Times of India in
2015 revealed that 22% of IIT-Bombay graduates do not believe in the existence of God, while another 30% do
not know.[23] Also, in 2015, in a study, researchers found that atheists score higher on cognitive reflection
tests than theists, stating that "disbelieving seems to require deliberative cognitive ability".[24] According to a
Harvard survey, more atheists and agnostics are entering Harvard University, one of the top-ranked schools
in America, than Catholics and Protestants. According to the same study, atheists and agnostics also make up
a much higher percentage of the students than the general public.[25][26] However, a Pew Center global study
ranked the religiously unaffiliated (including atheists and agnostics) as the third most educated group, higher
than Buddhists (fourth), Muslims (fifth), and Hindus (sixth), but lower than Christians (second) and Jews
(first).[27]

Education professor Yong Zhao asserts that countries with such differing religious attitudes succeed, while
countries with other differing religious attitudes fail, simply due to the excessive workload and testing present
in the Confucian cultural circle, the students within which make for outstanding test takers.[28]

Income

Studies have shown that groups with more income have significantly more atheists. A 2012 WIN-Gallup
International poll found that people in the highest quintile of income were 17% less likely to describe
themselves as religious than the bottom quintile.[17] This is likely because those with more education tend to
have higher incomes.

8 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

A recent study published in the Annals of Family Medicine suggests that, despite what some may think,
religiousness does not appear to significantly affect how much physicians care for the underserved.[29]

Race, gender, sexuality

The Pew Research Center (2014) reports that in the US:[30]:14,87

Whites continue to be more likely than both blacks and Hispanics to identify as religiously
unaffiliated; 24% of whites say they have no religion, compared with 20% of Hispanics and 18% of
blacks. But the religiously unaffiliated have grown (and Christians have declined) as a share of the
population within all three of these racial and ethnic groups. …

Among respondents who identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, fully 41% are religiously
unaffiliated, and fewer than half (48%) describe themselves as Christians. Non-Christian faiths also
are represented in the gay community at higher rates than among the general public, with 11% of gay,
lesbian and bisexual respondents identifying with faiths other than Christianity.

The Pew report also reported that 57% of "unaffiliated" were male, and 43% were female.

Atheists are becoming more numerous but also more diverse. White middle-class men such as Dawkins,
Harris, and Hitchens no longer define the movement. One blogger argues that

“ [T]he movement has become much more diverse -- not just in the obvious ways of gender,
race, and so on, but simply in terms of how many viewpoints are coming to the table. The
sheer number of people who are seen in some way as leaders... has gone up significantly....
And the increasing diversity in gender, race, class, and so on are important. We have a long
way to go in this regard, but we're doing much, much better than we were."[31]
”
Other atheists[Who?] strongly disagree and want to see the atheist movement focus on philosophical
arguments against religion and pseudoscience.[31]

African American atheists are a small minority (2% of the American population) facing severe prejudice.

“ In most African-American communities, it is more acceptable to be a criminal who goes to

church on Sunday, while selling drugs to kids all week, than to be an atheist who … contributes
to society and supports his family.
”
—Author James White[32]

Despite this, black atheists are joining online groups and giving each other confidence. Also, online groups
progress to arranging offline meetings.[32] Atheists of color frequently feel they have different priorities from
white atheist groups; they may be allied to faith groups that help poor blacks and fight racial discrimination.
Atheists of color also form their own groups focusing more on economic and social problems their
communities face and hoping general atheist groups will focus more on these issues in the future. Sikivu
Hutchinson is one of many atheists of color campaigning against injustice faced by poor people, black people,
LGBT people, women, and other oppressed groups.[33][34]

Atheism in history
“ Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at
the bottom of it, too?
”
—Douglas Adams[note 4]

There has been a long history of rational people who have not accepted superstitious or magical explanations
of natural phenomena and have felt that "gods" are unnecessary for the world. The Eastern philosophy of
Buddhism is broadly atheistic, explicitly eschewing the notion of a creation myth. In the Western world, there

9 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

have been atheists for almost as long as there has been

philosophy and writing. Some of the most famous thinkers of
the ancient world have been critical of belief in deities or
eschewed religion entirely - many favoring logic and
rationality to inform their lives and their actions rather than
religious texts. Democritus, who originally conceived of the
atom, hypothesized a world without magic holding it together.
Critias , one of the Thirty Tyrants of Athens, preceded Marx
when he called religion a tool to control the masses.

Perhaps the best example of an explicitly atheistic ancient

philosophy is the Charvaka (or Cārvāka) school of thought,
which originated in India in the first millennium BCE. The
Charvakas posited a materialistic universe, rejected the idea of
an afterlife, and emphasized the need to enjoy this life.[36] Some people think this is the symbol for
atheism.[note 3] Wikipedia's "atheism project" did
Modern atheism in the Western world can be traced to the Age
use it as a logo, but has since replaced it with
of Enlightenment. Important thinkers of that era who were
something more sensible.[35]
atheists include Baron d'Holbach and Denis Diderot. The
Scottish philosopher David Hume, though not explicitly
avowing atheism, wrote critical essays on religions and
religious beliefs (his most famous being a critique of the belief in miracles) and posited naturalistic
explanations for the origins of religion in The Natural History of Religion as well as criticizing traditional
arguments for the existence of God in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion .

Not until recently, however, did the term known as "atheism" begin to carry its current connotation. It is a
neutral or unimportant label in many countries worldwide. The nation of New Zealand, for example, has
thrice elected an agnostic woman (Helen Clark) as Prime Minister, followed by another agnostic leader (John
Key), with its current leader also being agnostic (Jacinda Ardern). Several UK prime ministers have been
atheists, including Clement Attlee and the former deputy PM, Nick Clegg. Also, the former Prime Minister of
Australia, Julia Gillard, is openly atheist, and at least one other former Australian PM was atheist. However,
the term carries a heavy stigma in more religious areas such as the United States or Saudi Arabia. Indeed,
prejudice against atheists is so high in the United States that one study found that they are America's most
distrusted minority.[37]

The reason for such attitudes towards atheists in these nations is unclear. Firstly, there is no stated creed with
which to disagree (except perhaps for "strong" atheists, whose only belief is that there are no gods). Nor are
atheists generally organized into lobbies or interest groups or political action committees (at least none that
wield massive power), unlike the many groups that lobby on behalf of various religions. And yet an atheist
would be the least likely to be elected President of the United States. According to the American Values
Survey, about 67% of all voters would be uncomfortable with an atheist president, and no other group —
including Mormons, African Americans, and homosexuals — would lose so much of the potential vote based
on one single trait alone.[38][39][40] One potential reason for this is that in the United States, Christian groups
have managed to push and implant the concept that without religion, there can be no morality - often playing
to people's needs for absolutes and written rules - absolute morality is presented as something inherently true
and achievable only by believers.

Misconceptions about atheists

The mistrust of atheism is often accompanied by snarl words, straw man arguments, and other myths and
legends to denigrate the idea of disbelief in established gods.

Fundamentalist Christians have a penchant for revising history to suggest that the bad acts of atheists are due
to a lack of belief in a god (usually the Christian God). Attempts by fundamentalist Christians to associate
Hitler,[note 5] Stalin,[note 6] and any number of terrible characters with atheism indulge the association fallacy
and would be laughably trivial were the smear not so effective at influencing uncritical thinkers.

Atheism as an organized religion

10 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

See the main article on this topic: Atheism as a religion

“ Atheism is a religion in the same way as 'off' is a television

station.
”
—Ben Emerson

One of the widest misconceptions, often used as a strong criticism, is that

atheism is a religion. However, while there are secular religions, atheism is
commonly defined as "no religion." To expand the definition of "religion" to
include atheism would thus destroy any use the word "religion" would have
in describing anything. It is quite often pointed out that calling atheism a
religion is akin to stating that the act of not collecting stamps is a hobby or
that being unemployed is an occupation. Following this, atheists do not
worship Charles Darwin or any other individual. Although some think
atheism requires evolution to be a complete worldview,[note 7] there is no
worship of anything or anyone in atheism, and acceptance of evolution isn't
exclusive to atheists. For that matter, an atheist does not have to accept the Atheist Stalin says not to
evidence for evolution.[note 8] If atheists worshiped Darwin as a god, they confuse him with those non-
communist atheists.
wouldn't be atheists. Basically, "atheism" is a word for a negative. However,
this leads to a few semantic issues.

This confuses the religious because they are used to religious identity as a declaration of allegiance to a view
rather than separation. This confusion leads them to assert that a denial of their religion must be an avowal of
another. They then declare the so-called New Atheists as hypocrites for denigrating religion while sticking to
an unstated one of their own or declare that science has an epistemology and religion has an epistemology.
Therefore science is just another faith (when religion's problem is that science's epistemology provably works
much better than religion's).

“ Atheism is actually a religion — indeed, much like "not collecting stamps" might be called a
hobby, or "not smoking" might be called a habit.
—TheThinkingAtheist[42]
”
A standard response is that if atheism is a religion, "bald" is a hair color, "not kicking a kitten" is a form of
animal abuse, and so on. Another is to note that if the definition of religion was expanded enough to
legitimately include atheism — say, by defining religion as "any philosophy on life" — practically everything in
the world would be a religion, such as socio-economic policies or views on equality.[note 9]

A new movement of atheist churches appears to be developing (such as Sunday Assembly and Oasis ([Link]
[Link]/)), but they do not worship; rather, they are places where like-minded
people get together on Sunday mornings to have fun, celebrate life, and whatever. This is a relatively new
phenomenon, and its prospects for the future are unclear.[43][44]

Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so accusations that "atheists" are doing x, y, and z hold little
water. In fact, a disaffection with organized religion and the potential for groupthink causes many believers to
abandon the faith and come out as atheists. It doesn't follow that such individuals would happily join another
organized group. Debate within the atheistic community is robust — debates about whether there is even an
"atheistic community" at all, for instance — and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic
mandate (or at least not a widely followed one) from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of
organization that there is no atheist equivalent to the Bible, Koran, or other holy texts. There are, of course,
atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by, say, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard
Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these
kinds of authors do and say. In fact, some atheists wish they could believe.[45]

Atheists just hate God

See the main article on this topic: Atheists hate god

Believers sometimes denigrate atheists because they "hate God." This, however, makes no sense. It is

11 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

impossible for atheists to "hate God", as they don't believe in any god, and one cannot hate something they
don't believe in. People who make such assertive claims toward atheists are confusing atheism with
misotheism.

Atheists have no morals

See the main article on this topic: Argument from morality

“ What I'm asking you to entertain is that there is nothing we need to believe on insufficient
evidence in order to have deeply ethical and spiritual lives.
”
—Sam Harris

Morality is one of the larger issues facing the world, and many religions and believers openly express the
notion that they have a monopoly on deciding, explaining, and enforcing moral judgments. Many religious
people will assume that since morals rise from (their) god, one cannot have morals without (their) god.
Contrary to the claims of such people, "no gods" does not equal "no morality." There are strong humanistic,
cultural, and genetic rationales for the existence of morality and ethical behavior, and many people, not just
atheists, recognize this fact.

Some atheist groups are doing charitable work traditionally done by religious organizations like funding
scholarships as an alternative to faith-based scholarships,[note 10] and at least one atheist group volunteers to
do environmental protection work.[47]

Indeed, it could be argued that accusing atheists of having no morals is sometimes a psychological projection
from people who have themselves not developed healthy intrinsic moral sensibilities and responses, and for
whom, theoretically (and sometimes by their own admission), an external written code such as that in the
Bible is the only thing stopping them from being a psychopathic criminal. As an adage quoted by ex-
evangelical author and blogger Valerie Tarico goes: "If you can’t tell right from wrong without appealing to an
authority or a sacred text, what you lack is not religion but compassion."[48]

Typical examples of this trope invoke either Hitler (whose supposed atheism is rather dubious) or some of the
genocidal communist dictators (mainly Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot). Setting aside the dubious Godwin's Law
example(s), using Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot as examples of the bad consequences of atheism has the common
weakness that it is far from clear that it was their atheism (rather than, say, their political ideologies and/or
ruthless ambitions) that caused their murderous actions. This is in stark contrast to the numerous and varied
examples of the very explicit use of religion to justify killing, maiming, raping, enslaving, or otherwise
mistreating your fellow man, including notorious instances of deities outright ordering such behavior in
sacred, religious texts, with the Old Testament YHWH’s command to exterminate the Amalekites being just
one, horrendous case in point.

There have been attempts by psychologists and social scientists to investigate whether atheists are more or
less moral than religious believers. Many of these experiments have been inconclusive, finding no
difference.[49]

This attitude has even been used to justify hate and discrimination and is the reason why atheists are so
distrusted in the US.[50]

Atheism = communism

In the US, where criticism of atheism is common, it often works well for politicians and evangelists to
compare atheism to the "evils" of communism or even to communism itself. These "evils" are not inextricably
fused with the values of atheism in reality. Although most orthodox Marxists are atheists (Marxism treats
religion as a "false consciousness" that needs to be eliminated), the atrocities wrought by Stalin and others
were not on account of their being atheists but on account of their being totalitarians and authoritarians: just
as Hitler's crimes against humanity weren't on account of his believing in God. Additionally, there have been
many anti-communists who were atheists or agnostics, such as Ayn Rand and the computer pioneer John von
Neumann.[note 11] In North Korea, one of the only 5 countries where communism still exists (the others being
China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba), it is mandatory to believe (or pretend to believe) that the Kim dynasty

12 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

consists of people with superhuman powers. In addition, it's worth noting that their head of state de jure is
not actually Kim Jong Un, but the spirit of his late grandfather, Kim Il Sung — who is practically revered as a
God himself.

Misconceptions of definition
“ Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the
obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify
himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt
that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their
cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of
unjustified religious beliefs.
”
—Sam Harris[51]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and atheists are not "actually agnostic because no one
can ever know whether God exists." This is a highly contested point among religious believers and atheistic
philosophers alike, as most, if not all, think atheists would happily change their minds given the right
evidence and thus could be considered "agnostic". However, this conflates the ideas of belief and knowledge.
Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief and not a lack of knowledge — which is often accepted on all sides of
the theistic debate. Atheism assumes that it is rational to think that gods don't exist based on logic and lack of
evidence.

Conversely, agnostics state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion. Some agnostic atheists can
be either weak or strong. It is at least logically possible for a theist to be an agnostic (e.g., "I believe in a
pantheon of lobsterish zoomorphic deities, but cannot prove this with evidence, and acknowledge and
embrace that my belief is rooted in faith") — but it is markedly difficult to find anyone who will fess up to
such a position.

Opposition to the term "atheism"

“ I decided to give up on being an atheist because I discovered that I
had nothing to say during a blowjob.
”
—Robert Anton Wilson

One difficulty with the term "atheism" is that it defines what its adherents do not
believe in rather than in what they do believe in. The lack of positive statements of
belief has led to the fact that there is really no overarching organization that speaks The "Scarlet A" of the
for atheists (some would regard this as a good thing, keeping atheism from Out Campaign[52]
becoming an organized religion) and has led to the comparison that organizing
atheists is like "herding cats", i.e., impossible. The only thing that unites atheists
may be a lack of belief in gods; thus, an overarching organization representing them would be physically
impossible.

Primarily because of the prevalence of extreme discrimination against atheists, people have tried to come up
with more positive terms or campaigns to get the godless philosophy noticed and respected. This allows
atheists to feel more united and happy with their beliefs (or lack of) but has also led to organizations that will
help them in situations, such as legal cases, where individuals couldn't do it on their own. The most
prominent examples:

▪ The "Brights Movement" describes itself as composed of people with a naturalistic worldview, though its
name might be self-defeating on the "helping make the godless more respected" side.
▪ Naturalist is the preferred term used by A. C. Grayling and others. Grayling argues that a statement such
as "I believe in naturalistic explanations" has the advantage of being a positive statement about what is
believed and does not narrowly define the speaker in terms of one particular lack of belief.
▪ Freethinker is another term meaning something similar; the philosophy behind it is known as
"freethought."

13 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

To date, none of these alternative descriptions seems to have taken hold a great deal, and the term of choice
for most people remains "atheist." "Freethinker" is probably the term with the most support, dating back to
the 19th century. "Naturalism" may be the second most popular, although the name may lead people to
confuse it with naturism or with some kind of eco-hippy ideal. "Bright" is the most recent term invented and
is currently the most controversial and divisive. Supporters of the Brights movement see it as a positive and
constructive redefinition (on par with the re-branding of homosexuality with the word "gay", which until then
primarily meant "happy" or "joyous"). In contrast, its detractors see it as nothing more than a shameless
attempt to turn atheism into organized religion and the use of "bright" as a cynical attempt to appear more
intelligent and, by implication, to make their opponents seem less so. Less commonly, some may identify as
"nontheist" in an "I'm an atheist but don't want to make a big deal of it" way.

In some contexts, words such as "rationalist" and "skeptic" may also be code words for "atheist." Although not
all atheists need to be rationalists, and not all rationalists need to be atheists, the connection is more in the
method a person uses to derive their beliefs rather than what their beliefs actually are.

As in the quote above, some who have expressed criticism of religion, among them Richard Dawkins, have
pointed out that the word atheism enforces theism as a social norm, as modern languages usually have no
established terms for people who do not believe in other supernatural phenomena (a-fairyist for people who
do not believe in fairies, a-unicornist, a-alchemist, a-astrologer, etc.).

Religious views on atheism

With the existence of deities being the central belief of almost all religious systems, it is not surprising that
atheism is seen as more threatening than competing belief systems, regardless of how different they may be.
This often manifests in the statement that "freedom of religion doesn't include freedom from religion". It is
also important for theists that the political hierarchy, the priesthood, should do their utmost to discourage
dissent — as true believers make better tithe givers. Most religious codes are more than a bit irritated with
those who do not believe. The Bible, for example, includes clear ad hominem attacks on non-believers, such as
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1), while the penalty for apostasy
in Islamic law is death — and this is still endorsed today. One author has proposed a correction to Psalm 53,
as follows:[53]

The fool hath said in his heart, "I know there is a God, and just one God. I know his name, I
know his mind and his plans for me. I have a personal relationship with God's son. I know
where we came from and what happens after we die. I know if I merely believe in God I shall
live forever in paradise. And all I have to do is pray to God, and all my wishes will come true."

In the USA, the increased public visibility of atheism — what some commentators call the "New Atheism",
seen in the popularity of books like The God Delusion — has brought renewed energy to the debate between
believers and non-believers.[54] As part of that debate, some believers have tried to stop what they think of as
the “irresponsible” promotion of atheism. Their efforts range from material that has academic pretensions to
arguments that are plainly abusive, focusing on "smacking" atheists with PRATT arguments regarding how
great the Bible isn't is — and, of course, a heavy bias towards their own religion being true.[55] What these
arguments tend to have in common is that they are less about providing arguments for religious belief and
more about keeping atheists quiet, with questions such as "don't you have anything better to do than talk
about the God you don't believe in?" or arguing that "faith is better than reason so shut up".[56] It's not
entirely unexpected that this would be the thrust of several anti-atheist arguments — after all, according to
several Christians in influential positions, even the mere knowledge that atheism exists can be dangerous.[57]

Atheistic view of the Bible

Atheists may view the Bible and other religious works as literature, fiction, mythology, epic, philosophy,
agitprop, irrelevant, history, or various combinations thereof. Many atheists may find the book repulsively
ignorant and primitive, while others may find inspiration from certain passages even though they don't
believe in the supernatural events and miracles mentioned in the Bible. Many atheists see religious works as
interesting historical records of the myths and beliefs of humanity. By definition, atheists do not believe any
religious text to be divinely inspired truth: in other words, "Dude, it's just a book" (or, in some cases, a
somewhat random collection of different books).

14 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

Several types of evidence support the idea that "it's just a book." Textual analysis of the various books of the
Bible reveals vastly differing writing styles among the authors of the individual books of the Old and New
Testaments, suggesting that these works represent many different (human) voices and not a sole, divinely
inspired voice. The existence of Apocrypha, writings dating from the time of the Bible that were not included
in official canon by Jews or Christians (and peppered with mystical events such as encounters with angels,
demons, and dragons), further suggests that "divine authorship" is not a reliable claim. Within Christianity,
there are differences among sects regarding which books are Apocrypha and which are included in the Bible,
or which are included under the heading "Apocrypha", indicating that they constitute holy writings but are
not meant to be taken as literally as the other books. The Book of Tobit, for example, is included in the
Catholic Bible but considered Apocrypha by Protestants and is wholly absent from the Jewish Bible.

Another problem with the "divine authorship" of the Bible is the existence of texts that predate it but contain
significant similarities to certain Biblical stories. The best-known among these is the flood story, found in
numerous versions in texts from across the ancient Middle East, including the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh,
which bears textual similarities with the Biblical account. Another such story with apparent Babylonian origin
is that of the Tower of Babel. It has been suggested that some of these stories were appropriated by the Jews
during the Babylonian exile.

Studies of the history of the Bible, although not undertaken with the intent of disproving it (in fact, many
Biblical historians set out to prove the Bible's veracity), shed light on the Bible's nature as a set of historical
documents which were written by humans and were affected by the cultural circumstances surrounding their
creation. It should be noted that this type of rational discourse neither proves nor requires an atheistic
worldview: one can believe that the Bible is not the infallible word of God either because one adheres to a
non-Judeo-Christian religion or because one is a Christian or Jew but not a Biblical literalist. These criticisms
of Biblical "truth" counter the arguments of fundamentalists, who are among atheism's most vociferous
critics.

Persecution of atheists
Atheists and the nonreligious face persecution and discrimination in many nations worldwide. In Bangladesh,
Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Jordan, atheists (and others) are denied free speech through
blasphemy laws. In Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, being an
atheist can carry the death penalty. In many nations, citizens are forced to register as adherents of a limited
range of religions, which denies atheists and adherents of alternative religions the right to free expression.
Atheists can lose their right to citizenship and face restrictions on their right to marry.[58][59] In many parts of
the world, atheists face increasing prejudice and hate speech similar to that which ethnic and religious
minorities suffer. Saudi Arabia introduced new laws banning atheist thought in any form; a Muslim
expressing religious views the government disliked was falsely called an atheist and sentenced to seven years
in prison and 600 lashes. In Egypt, young people talking about their right to state atheist ideas on television
or on YouTube were detained.[60]

In Islamic theocracies

In most (if not all) Islamic theocracies, being an atheist can mean prison or even execution. In Bangladesh,
notably, atheists risk murder. The Center for Inquiry is raising money to get atheists and sometimes their
families out of countries where their lives are in danger.[61]

In the United States

“ No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered
patriots. This is one nation under God.
—George H. W. Bush[62]
”
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group Americans least relate to for
shared vision or want to marry into their family.[63]

15 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

This Group Does Not at All Agree with I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted
Group in Question
My Vision of American Society: to Marry a Member of This Group:
Atheist 39.6% 47.6%
Muslim 26.3% 33.5%
Homosexual 22.6% N/A
Conservative Christian 13.5% 6.9%
Recent Immigrant 12.5% N/A
Hispanic 7.6% 18.5%
Jew 7.4% 11.8%
Asian American 7.0% 18.5%
African American 4.6% 27.2%
White American 2.2% 2.3%

From the report's conclusions

“ To be an atheist in such an environment is not to be one more religious minority among many
in a strongly pluralist society. Rather, Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic
representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in
American society altogether.
”
A 2012 Gallup poll showed that presidential candidates who are open atheists are the least likely demographic
to be voted into office.[64]

Group in I would vote for a presidential candidate who I would not vote for a presidential candidate who
Question is___: is___:
Black 96% 4%
A woman 95% 5%
Catholic 94% 5%
Hispanic 92% 7%
Jewish 91% 7%
Mormon 80% 18%
Gay or lesbian 68% 30%
Muslim 58% 40%
An atheist 54% 43%

However, in 2015, a new Gallup poll was released that indicated that atheism was no longer at the bottom of
the list, indicating a bit of progress. Unfortunately, some groups' approval ratings decreased.[65]

I would vote for a presidential candidate who I would not vote for a presidential candidate who
Group in Question
is___: is___:
Catholic 93% 6%
Black 92% 7%
A woman 92% 8%
Hispanic 91% 8%
Jewish 91% 7%
Mormon 81% 18%
Gay or lesbian 74% 24%
Evangelical
73% 25%
Christian
Muslim 60% 38%
An atheist 58% 40%
A socialist 47% 50%

In some parts of the United States, open atheists may be attacked, spat on, turned out of the family home,
sent to Bible camp, and forced to pretend religiosity.[66]

In the US, atheists are the least trusted and liked people out of all social groups, possibly because of their

16 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

superior knowledge[67] of actual religious content. They top the charts when people are asked, "who would
you least trust to be elected President" or "who would you least want to marry your beautiful, sweet, innocent
Christian daughter."[68][69] It probably doesn't help that the U.S. is one of the most religious developed
countries in the world.[70]

Many have lost jobs and been harassed out of their homes for lack of any belief that could act as motivation to
cause harm. Chuck Norris infamously claimed that he would like to tattoo "In God We Trust" onto atheist
foreheads before booting them out of Jesusland,[71] possibly to work as slaves in the Mines of Morîa (he
claims this is a joke, but few actually laughed). More extreme fundamentalists seem to want them outright
banned from existence; blogger Andrew Schlafly will almost instantly ban anyone from his website just for not
believing in God or even using the dreaded a-word in one’s username, and George H. W. Bush declared, "I
don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God," questioning whether anyone who disbelieves in God should even be allowed to vote (or at
least be allowed to vote themselves out of persecution).[72] A creationist group has refined this way of
thinking, stating that atheists and other "evolutionists" should be disenfranchised, as anyone who believes the
theory of evolution is clearly mentally incompetent.[73]

Six US states have laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[74] This is despite a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling — Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)[75] — prohibiting discrimination against atheist
officeholders.[76] These states are:

▪ Arkansas
▪ Maryland
▪ North Carolina
▪ South Carolina
▪ Tennessee
▪ Texas

If atheism isn't a hanging offense in these places, they probably wish it were.[citation NOT needed][note 12]

In Europe

In some European countries, being an atheist is unremarkable.

France has an entirely secular culture, with a suitably large proportion of the population declaring "no
religion." In Scandinavia, while most people are members of their respective national churches, irreligiosity is
widespread, and being openly atheist is entirely unremarkable.[77] In the UK, Tony Blair's spin-doctor Alistar
Campbell was led to declare that "we don't do god",[78] and Tony himself said that he kept quiet about religion
because people would think he was "a nutter". The previous deputy Prime Minister was an atheist, while the
Prime Minister himself has said that his Church of England faith "comes and goes". Overall, atheists in
Europe aren't demonized as in America and other countries led by fundamentalists. However, British
Muslims who become atheists face ostracism, threats, and physical abuse.[79]

Conversely, in Poland, 95 percent of Poles identify themselves as Catholic, even though secular opinions are
increasing.[80]

In Australia

From 2010 to 2013, Australia had a prime minister, Julia Gillard, who defined herself as an atheist. Many
Australians despised her for a whole bunch of (potentially legitimate) reasons, but being an atheist wasn't one
of them.

Why even argue with theists?

The question remains, why should an atheist be held to a theist's definitions, their rules of argumentation,

17 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

and their playing field? Ultimately, atheists don't need to make a case for atheism because the assertive (or
positive) claim is made by those who say "God exists." By the rules of logic, science, and even law, the ones
making the assertion must be the ones who prove their claim, and not the other way around. Otherwise,
atheists would also be held accountable to make a case for being an athorist (someone who does not believe in
the Norse god Thor), etc., and almost everyone would be held accountable for being an "adragonist" or an
"aunicornist" and an "adinosaurslivingwithpeopleist".

One reason that a person might argue with a theist is the same reason one might argue with a friend who is
convinced she was abducted by aliens or who thinks children are better off without vaccinations: because we
care about them, and the choices they make can be harmful to themselves and their children; because living a
life of fear out of an illusion seems an awful way to live. However, the people with this motivation are
generally known as "do-gooders" or "busybodies", and such arguments can be counter-productive in that they
further cement the delusions.

Another common motivation for arguing with theists is political. Theists make up a majority of the world's
population and, in many countries, a majority of the governing elite; they have often appealed to religion as a
means to stay in power, often to draw a distinction between their subjects and foreigners (as in the Nazis'
pandering to Christianity, or, more recently, in most European Islamophobia).

Hence, a strategy for subverting such elites is to dispute the religious beliefs to which they appeal. In the
modern era, this started with the Enlightenment, as skeptics challenged royal absolutism, based upon the role
of God as King of Heaven, by questioning the existence of God. There was a significant atheist contingent
within the proponents of the French Revolution.

Later, communists took up this kind of challenge to theism, with Karl Marx arguing that religion was the
"opiate of the masses", used by clergy to hold workers in the trammels of the bourgeoisie. This sentiment
emerges in this excerpt from the famous communist anthem, L'Internationale:

“ There are no supreme saviours

Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
Producers, let us save ourselves
Decree the common salvation.
”
Today, theist politicians use religion as a rhetorical tool to push various agendas that might otherwise come
under closer scrutiny. For example, as the American evangelical-left figure Jim Wallis noted in his book God's
Politics, the Republican Party has made very successful use of religion, specifically concerning the abortion
issue, to attract voters who would otherwise vote for the Democratic Party.

A consequence of the prevalence of such rhetorical devices is that a broad range of crank religious ideas,
specifically creationism, gain credence when politicians use them to ensure the voting public of their religious
bona fides. This, in turn, causes legitimate science to fall into some disrepute among the people, making it
much easier for other kinds of pseudoscience, such as global warming denialism and scientific racism, to get a
foot in the door.

In short, the presence of religion in politics can lead to a whole maelstrom of craziness, and some people
might feel motivated to nip this in the bud by discrediting religion in general.

See also
▪ Agnosticism For those of you in the mood,
RationalWiki has a fun article
▪ Antitheism about Atheism.
▪ Apatheism
▪ Atheism+
▪ Atheist bus campaign
▪ Atheophobia
▪ Brights Movement
▪ Deism
▪ Methodological naturalism

18 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

▪ New Atheism
▪ FAQ for the Newly Deconverted
▪ Theism
▪ Jean Meslier, a priest who wrote about being/becoming an atheist

Essays by RationalWikians
▪ Atheism essays category

Want to read this in another language?

Русскоязычным вариантом данной статьи является статья Атеизм

External links
▪ Atheism ([Link] -- BBC: Religion
▪ Definition of "atheism" (and "atheist") ([Link]
▪ Description of Atheism ([Link]
▪ American Atheists and The American Humanist Society debate the existence of God ([Link]
[Link]/questions/is-there-a-god)
▪ Atheist Frontier - includes a wide range of useful resources ([Link]
▪ Atheist Scholar ([Link]
▪ Celebrity Atheist List ([Link] -- A wiki of contemporary and
historical non-believers, with entries categorized as "The Atheist and the Materialist," "The Agnostic" and
"The Ambiguous"
▪ Center for Atheist Research ([Link]
▪ Everyone's "atheism" community on Google+ ([Link]
7764)
▪ Investigating Atheism Project ([Link] -- University of Cambridge
▪ Mom, Dad, I'm an Atheist... OH SNAP! ([Link]
▪ Pharyngula blogger, PZ Myers writes a gorgeous argument for the humanity of atheism ([Link]
[Link]/pharyngula/2007/06/we_stand_awed_at_the_heights_o.php)
▪ Some things about some other things - ScienceBlogs ([Link]
ourtiers_reply.php)
▪ The [Link] usenet (newsgroups) FAQ ([Link]
▪ The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time ([Link]
▪ 9 Great Freethinkers and Religious Dissenters in History ([Link]
thinkers-and-religious-dissenters-in-history)

National atheism organizations

▪ American Atheists ([Link]
▪ Atheist Ireland - Promoting atheism, reason, and an ethical, secular state ([Link]
▪ Canadian atheists - True, Northern, Strong, and Free ([Link]

Notes
2. Although some noncognitivists would claim the
1. With thanks to the Fantasy Name Generator.[4] argument disproves atheism as well because it
also makes a truth-claim about nonsensical
statements, which cannot be true or false by
definition.

19 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM
Atheism - RationalWiki [Link]

3. It is actually the symbol used by American 8. Stalin is a good example: he rejected Darwinian
Atheists. The symbol was allegedly created at the evolution, promoting Lysenkoism instead, and
founding of American Atheists in 1963… Looks consistently purged evolutionary biologists in favor
more like the logo for the "Annapolis Nukes" of Lysenkoists
triple-A baseball team. 9. British law has come close to finding this in
4. This quotation serves as the dedication in employment discrimination cases.
Dawkins' The God Delusion. 10. Antelope Valley Freethinkers funded scholarships
5. Who was a lifelong Roman Catholic and invoked for young freethinkers. The Antelope Valley Union
religion and God quite often in his rhetoric High School District refused to publish details
6. Who was thrown out of the orthodox seminary for about those scholarships while religious
stealing and giving the proceeds to the scholarships were published. After a successful
Communist party and later used the Orthodox lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion
church for political gain during the war, though he Foundation the freethinkers' scholarship will be
likely was an atheist, if anybody who believes published with the others.[46]
himself to be godlike can called any such thing 11. Although later in his life, he took the pascal's
7. Richard Dawkins, an early chapter in The Blind wager. Well, he was a game theorist after all.
Watchmaker[41] 12. Okay, maybe not Maryland, but you get the point.

References
13. Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by
1. Atheism ([Link]
Country, According to the Latest Financial
m) by Kai E. Nielsen, Encyclopædia Britannica.
Times/Harris Poll ([Link]
2. God Checker for a humorous list of many of these 70109084036/[Link]
gods ([Link] ws/[Link]?NewsID=1131) (December
3. Richard Dawkins on militant atheism ([Link] 20, 2006) Harris Interactive (archived from January
[Link]/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant 9, 2007).
_atheism.html), February 2002 14. Few 'No Religion' Americans Are Atheists" ([Link]
4. Fantasy Name Generator ([Link] [Link]/OAqX7) by Dan Gilgoff (September 28,
m/namegen/) 2009) US News & World Report (archived from 7
5. Hitchens's razor ([Link] Jul 2013 12:55:46 UTC).
hens%27s_razor), Wikiquote 15. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Report 1:
6. [Link] ([Link] Religious Affiliation ([Link]
7. Logical Arguments for Atheism ([Link] 0110202041557/[Link]
org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/[Link]) rts) The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The Secular Web. "1.6% are atheists" (archived from February 2,
2011).
8. Evidential Arguments for Atheism ([Link]
[Link]/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evidenti 16. YouGov / Daily Telegraph Survey Results (https://
[Link]) The Secular Web [Link]/web/20050721084545/[Link]
[Link]/archives/pdf/STI040101003_2.pdf)
9. Major Threat to Religion? Clergy People Coming (2004) YouGov (archived from July 21, 2005).
Out as Atheists ([Link]
98/major_threat_to_religion_clergy_people_comin 17. Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism ([Link]
g_out_as_atheists?page=0%2C2) by Greta [Link]/document/136318147/Win-gallup-Int
Christina (June 11, 2012) AlterNet. ernational-Global-Index-of-Religiosity-and-Atheism
-2012) by Ijaz Shafi Gilani, Rushna Shahid & Irene
10. Dutch rethink Christianity for a doubtful world (htt Zuettel (2012) WIN-Gallup International via Scribd.
p://[Link]/news/world-europe-14417362)
by Robert Pigott (5 August 2011) BBC. 18. Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked
to IQ ([Link]
11. Groups support pastors, priests leaving the pulpit [Link]/[Link]) by
([Link] (October 14, 2011) Elizabeth Landau (Feb. 26, 2010) CNN Health.
Freedom from Religion Foundation (archived from "…people who identified as liberal and atheist had
7 Jul 2013 12:55:04 UTC). higher IQs…".
12. The Clergy Project: Do Atheist Clergy Change The 19. "Would you believe it?" by Paul Bell. "Would you
Religion Game? ([Link] believe it?" (Feb. 2002) Mensa Magazine, UK
/2012/06/20/clergy-project/) by Greta Christina Edition, pp. 12–13.
(June 20, 2012) The Orbit.

20 of 23 1/19/2023, 10:57 PM