History UsefulNotes / Atheism

It’s also important to note that such skepticism of religion was by no means a Western phenomenon. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, are philosophies without a deity figure, though other sects approached something resembling monotheism later on. Hinduism had materialist schools such as the Carvaka, Samkhya and Mimamsa. In China, Confucius developed a philosophy of education, curiosity, and learning that explicitly distanced itself from metaphysical and spiritual questions, noting that such concepts, even if true, were generally available and valuable to the very few, and that society as a whole should be considered with materially improving [[TheNeedsOfTheMany society as a whole]]. Likewise, Charles Darwin, in describing his voyages to South America, stated that some native tribes did not even have a word for god and organized their society without any identifiable religion (and therefore cannot explicitly be called atheists, since they never believed in god to start with), noting that it refuted the idea that religion or belief was intrinsic or heritable, rather than cultural and acquired. During the golden age of the Arab world, several writers such as Omar Khayyam, Averroes, Ibn al-Rawandi and Abu Bakr al-Razi expressed ideas that stressed education, materialism, criticized infallibility of religious truths, expressing a naturalistic worldview that would supersede religious explanations. The freethinker Al-Maʿarri likewise regarded religion as a “fable invented by the ancients”. Even in the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine, a former Manichaean (an African heretical sect), stated that he considered the Bible’s fantastic stories to be largely embellished to be accessible to the common man. He dismissed literal interpretations of the Bible’s account for creation, noting that as and when science advanced with superior explanations, it should supplant existing Biblical interpretations. This was the defense which Galileo (who was a religious man) used—unsuccessfully—in his trial argument for a heliocentric model of the solar system.[[note]]The dispute there being over whether the heliocentric model ''were'' a better explanation—most scientists at the time didn’t think so.[[/note]]

Modern atheism first found voice in the course of UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, largely as a consequence of the debate about separation between church and state. It was accompanied by UsefulNotes/{{Deism}} at first. Philosophers such as Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated belief in a distant, immaterial, non-human deity who governed by natural—''i.e.'', '''scientific'''—laws. Deism attacked Christian intolerance and superstition and advocated science and democracy. The deists argued that religion should have no place in politics and that society should be free to discuss different ideas and should have total religious tolerance. In the Revolution, graffiti stating “Death is an Eternal Sleep” often defaced churches and cemeteries. Cathedrals and altar pieces were subject to petty and creative vandalism, giving free public expression to atheist ideas for the first time in Western history. During the ReignOfTerror, atheist and deist revolutionaries briefly de-Christianized France entirely. Inspired by the Revolution, romantic poets like Percy Shelley wrote a pamphlet titled “The Necessity of Atheism”, and the idea was common in Romantic, Revolutionary and Decadent circles. Politically and philosophically, UsefulNotes/FriedrichNietzsche noted that with the Revolution, “God is Dead”—''i.e.'', the all-powerful ideal of God, even among liberal believers, was not the same in an age gradually supplanted by scientific, philosophical and political changes. He argued that the end of Christianity (or any other single belief as dominating Western culture) would lead to a period of nihilism from which people would then be free to create their own values and moral code. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution sparked a major change in Victorian England and, much later, America, since it provided a scientific explanation for human origins that no longer required an anthropomorphic deity to shape it for human purpose.

In terms of atheism as it means today—''i.e.'', a system of ethics and philosophy drawn from science and empiricism which is non-supernatural—the Greek Sophists and Atomists were more important. They were the ones who started criticizing Greek myths as merely elaborate fabrications of Kings and Emperors raised to Gods. They also started describing the natural world using language stripped of metaphors. To them, Greek myths and its multiple gods were merely anthropomorphized representations of natural phenomena and fancy metaphors. The philosopher Theodoros of Cyrene even exposed the Elusinian MysteryCult and criticized religion as largely a money-making scam in terms that are fairly modern. This more skeptical worldview can also be seen in the plays of Creator/{{Euripides}}, roughly contemporary to these changes. He was often accused by critics of lacking in piety; in his plays, gods and Greek heroes are often depicted in down-to-earth fashion, speaking everyday language, as opposed to the more religious plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Epicurus, who was inspired by these writers, charted out [[UsefulNotes/{{Epicureanism}} the first coherent materialist ideology]]. Although Epicurus acknowledged the existence of gods, by describing the problem of evil, he stated that if the Gods existed, then it was unlikely that human suffering mattered to such beings, and that it made little sense organizing life and ethics [[BlueAndOrangeMorality based on a morality]] alien to humanity. He also denied the existence of an afterlife and stressed the importance and vitality of the visible world.

** Technically, hatred of God is called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism misotheism]], and [[GodIsEvil the belief that God actually exists, but is evil]] is called dystheism or maltheism. In Wiki/TVTropes we call that [[NayTheist Nay Theism]]. In contrast, the distaste some atheists have for God ''as a fictional character'' is not related in any way to God’s ''existence''. It’s called “hypothetical misotheism” specifically.

* '''Spontaneously find God in foxholes''': Contrary to the popular adage, there ''are'' and have been atheists in foxholes. Sometimes it may well be the old “trauma leading them to abandon religion” as per the usual origin of the HollywoodAtheist. More often than not, however, some soldiers started as atheists and live through their horrible experiences with their atheism intact. Many such atheists find “No atheists in foxholes” shockingly insensitive to atheist soldiers who served their country well.

Modern atheism first found voice in the course of UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, largely as a consequence of the debate about separation between church and state. It was accompanied by UsefulNotes/{{Deism}} at first. Philosophers such as Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated belief in a distant, immaterial, non-human deity who governed by natural—''i.e.'', '''scientific'''—laws. Deism attacked Christian intolerance and superstition and advocated science and democracy. The deists argued that religion should have no place in politics and that society should be free to discuss different ideas and should have total religious tolerance. In the Revolution, graffiti stating “Death is an Eternal Sleep” often defaced churches and cemeteries. Cathedrals and altar pieces were subject to petty and creative vandalism, giving free public expression to atheist ideas for the first time in Western history. During the ReignOfTerror, atheist and deist revolutionaries briefly de-Christianized France entirely. Inspired by the Revolution, romantic poets like Percy Shelley wrote a pamphlet titled “The Necessity of Atheism”, and the idea was common in Romantic, Revolutionary and Decadent circles. Politically and philosophically, UsefulNotes/FriedrichNietzsche noted that with the Revolution, “God is Dead"—''i.e.'', the all-powerful ideal of God, even among liberal believers, was not the same in an age gradually supplanted by scientific, philosophical and political changes. He argued that the end of Christianity (or any other single belief as dominating Western culture) would lead to a period of nihilism from which people would then be free to create their own values and moral code. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution sparked a major change in Victorian England and, much later, America, since it provided a scientific explanation for human origins that no longer required an anthropomorphic deity to shape it for human purpose.

* The first solution includes anyone who doesn’t actively profess the existence of a god, including people who have never been exposed to theistic ideas, like for example infants. This sits well with the etymology “without god", but isn’t what people usually talk about when they say “atheist”. It is known as “implicit” atheism.
* If you only consider people who actually know what a god is, the atheists will necessarily be “explicit” atheists. They might be undecided, though. If you ask them if a god exists, they might say “maybe” or “no", they just won’t say “yes”.

Modern atheism first found voice in the course of UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, largely as a consequence of the debate about separation between church and state. It was accompanied by UsefulNotes/{{Deism}} at first. Philosophers such as Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated belief in a distant, immaterial, non-human deity who governed by natural—''i.e.'', '''scientific'''—laws. Deism attacked Christian intolerance and superstition and advocated science and democracy. The deists argued that religion should have no place in politics and that society should be free to discuss different ideas and should have total religious tolerance. In the Revolution, graffiti stating “Death is an Eternal Sleep” often defaced churches and cemeteries. Cathedrals and altar pieces were subject to petty and creative vandalism, giving free public expression to atheist ideas for the first time in Western history. During the ReignOfTerror, atheist and deist revolutionaries briefly de-Christianized France entirely. Inspired by the Revolution, romantic poets like Percy Shelley wrote a pamphlet titled “The Necessity of Atheism", and the idea was common in Romantic, Revolutionary and Decadent circles. Politically and philosophically, UsefulNotes/FriedrichNietzsche noted that with the Revolution, “God is Dead"—''i.e.'', the all-powerful ideal of God, even among liberal believers, was not the same in an age gradually supplanted by scientific, philosophical and political changes. He argued that the end of Christianity (or any other single belief as dominating Western culture) would lead to a period of nihilism from which people would then be free to create their own values and moral code. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution sparked a major change in Victorian England and, much later, America, since it provided a scientific explanation for human origins that no longer required an anthropomorphic deity to shape it for human purpose.

** Second, “atheism” is more on the level of “monotheism” or “polytheism” than “Christian” or “Muslim", or “Hindu” or “Sikh”. It tells you how many gods the person believes in (zero) without telling you anything about what they precisely believe about the world or which rules they live by beyond that.

** Religious “moral bundles", for those who follow a religion that is compatible with atheism such as Buddhism or Jainism will build their moral code around that.

* '''[[FlatEarthAtheist Close their minds and unfairly dismiss all supernatural claims without consideration]]''': A common mantra is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a “first cause", an atheist might ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. To most atheists, declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can’t detect it doesn’t mean nobody can), it also disarms you of any objective means to ''know''.

** In a similar vein, most atheists will not make a conscious effort to avoid religious exclamations that have long been a cultural norm, such as “oh my god!", “hell no", et cetera.

** This may coincide with the concept of the “virtuous pagan", someone not of the religion or who was around before the religion in question existed and still did good works.

** Noteworthy here is that adverts by religious organizations are generally considered appeals for membership: “Join Our Church (because) we believe in X", with X automatically ruled an expression of faith or point of doctrine. Atheism operates from a purely secular perspective and constitutes a public call to action, therefore falling under a more stringent set of commercial and political advertising rules.

** One popular campaign gets pictures of local atheists along with a quote from him/her along the lines of “I'm an atheist and I'm a good person", usually with a first name and the individual’s profession. Despite being a very mild example, even this has raised ire.

* Generation Xero Films has produced a series of Website/YouTube videos entitled “[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1NfhZ8Uc0 Anything But an Atheist]]", dealing with recent poll results that show that atheists are “the most hated and mistrusted minority population in America”.

->''"If I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street, I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."''

Atheism is not an organized belief system the way Christianity or Islam is. An atheist can believe any number of things, ranging from the standard "there probably aren't any gods" to "there are no gods" to "god is dead" (this one is purely philosophical, not the literal belief that a god existed, then died) to "humanity is god" (again, generally philosophical) and anything in between.

The general rule of atheists themselves divides atheism into two classes, "hard" atheism and "soft" atheism. A hard atheist believes that there is no god or gods. A soft atheist simply lacks belief in a god or gods. There is a difference; the former has a positive belief in the lack of a deity, while the latter have not rejected the existence in one, they just don't believe that it/they exist, because no evidence of their existence has been provided.

To begin with something simple, the 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary offers this: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."
Definitions of this kind are generally accepted, bearing in mind that "disbelief" can be interpreted to mean anything from simple lack of belief to active rejection of belief.

* The first solution includes anyone who doesn't actively profess the existence of a god, including people who have never been exposed to theistic ideas, like for example infants. This sits well with the etymology "without god", but isn't what people usually talk about when they say "atheist". It is known as "implicit" atheism.
* If you only consider people who actually know what a god is, the atheists will necessarily be "explicit" atheists. They might be undecided, though. If you ask them if a god exists, they might say "maybe" or "no", they just won't say "yes".
* Within this group, there are those who do go one step further and actively ''believe'' that no god exists. This is called "strong" or "positive" atheism (the rest being "negative" or "weak" atheism).
* Then, there are a number of other labels some prefer to "atheist". The main one is {{UsefulNotes/Agnosticism}} but some call themselves "apatheist" (indicating sheer indifference as to the existence of deities), "theological noncognitivist" (indicating they feel that words like "God" [[MeaninglessMeaningfulWords aren't coherent]]) or simply "non-religious" (which does not necessarily entail any kind of atheism, mind you…)

While many people, atheists and religious, see atheism as stemming from scientific developments and blame Darwin's evolutionary theory for its spread, the truth is that what can be generally considered atheism is as old as the hills. There's also the curious etymology of the word and its shift in usage. For a long time in history, atheist was the word used to describe people who believed ''in other gods'' rather than ''no gods''. In Ancient Greece and Rome, the state supported religion was regarded as the one true and official religion. At the trial of Socrates, the great philosopher was called "atheos" because he did not subscribe to the Gods of the State (that is state recognized religion) and practised private beliefs. Likewise, in a curious irony, early Christians were persecuted by the Romans for being "atheists" as well since they did not subscribe to pagan beliefs. In medieval Europe, Catholics called heretics, Protestants and dissenting priests "atheists" simply because they did not accept official Church doctrine.

It's also important to note that such skepticism of religion was by no means a Western phenomenon. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, are philosophies without a deity figure, though other sects approached something resembling monotheism later on. Hinduism had materialist schools such as the Carvaka, Samkhya and Mimamsa. In China, Confucius developed a philosophy of education, curiosity, and learning that explicitly distanced itself from metaphysical and spiritual questions, noting that such concepts, even if true, were generally available and valuable to the very few, and that society as a whole should be considered with materially improving [[TheNeedsOfTheMany society as a whole]]. Likewise, Charles Darwin, in describing his voyages to South America, stated that some native tribes did not even have a word for god and organized their society without any identifiable religion (and therefore cannot explicitly be called atheists, since they never believed in god to start with), noting that it refuted the idea that religion or belief was intrinsic or heritable, rather than cultural and acquired. During the golden age of the Arab world, several writers such as Omar Khayyam, Averroes, Ibn al-Rawandi and Abu Bakr al-Razi expressed ideas that stressed education, materialism, criticized infallibility of religious truths, expressing a naturalistic worldview that would supersede religious explanations. The freethinker Al-Maʿarri likewise regarded religion as a "fable invented by the ancients". Even in the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine, a former Manichaean (an African heretical sect), stated that he considered the Bible's fantastic stories to be largely embellished to be accessible to the common man. He dismissed literal interpretations of the Bible's account for creation, noting that as and when science advanced with superior explanations, it should supplant existing Biblical interpretations. This was the defense which Galileo (who was a religious man) used—unsuccessfully—in his trial argument for a heliocentric model of the solar system.[[note]]The dispute there being over whether the heliocentric model ''were'' a better explanation—most scientists at the time didn't think so.[[/note]]

Modern atheism first found voice in the course of UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, largely as a consequence of the debate about separation between church and state. It was accompanied by UsefulNotes/{{Deism}} at first. Philosophers such as Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated belief in a distant, immaterial, non-human deity who governed by natural—''i.e.'', '''scientific'''—laws. Deism attacked Christian intolerance and superstition and advocated science and democracy. The deists argued that religion should have no place in politics and that society should be free to discuss different ideas and should have total religious tolerance. In the Revolution, graffiti stating "Death is an Eternal Sleep" often defaced churches and cemeteries. Cathedrals and altar pieces were subject to petty and creative vandalism, giving free public expression to atheist ideas for the first time in Western history. During the ReignOfTerror, atheist and deist revolutionaries briefly de-Christianized France entirely. Inspired by the Revolution, romantic poets like Percy Shelley wrote a pamphlet titled "The Necessity of Atheism", and the idea was common in Romantic, Revolutionary and Decadent circles. Politically and philosophically, UsefulNotes/FriedrichNietzsche noted that with the Revolution, "God is Dead"—''i.e.'', the all-powerful ideal of God, even among liberal believers, was not the same in an age gradually supplanted by scientific, philosophical and political changes. He argued that the end of Christianity (or any other single belief as dominating Western culture) would lead to a period of nihilism from which people would then be free to create their own values and moral code. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution sparked a major change in Victorian England and, much later, America, since it provided a scientific explanation for human origins that no longer required an anthropomorphic deity to shape it for human purpose.

* There's also a strain in atheism, what is regarded as being its secular strain, at least among some European writers, where it is a sentiment that doesn't come from opposition or hostility to religion. These writers will admit that religion has moments of beauty and truth, and admit that the negative aspects of Christianity can't be regarded as its core tenets. Their critique is simply: what can Christianity, even the beautiful, nice kind, provide to people who live in the modern world?
** People with problems in modern society, even ones who call themselves believers, will necessarily consult therapists or psychologists, family and friends, form communities based on shared interests. Charitable works and political causes, as well as human rights problems, are the domain of government watch-dogs, rights group, UN and [=NGOs=]. Art and architecture are no longer patronized by the Church. This argument essentially sees religion in need of solving existential questions to justify its function, rather than atheists having to do so. It has become possible in developed European nations to go through life without really thinking deeply or meaningfully about religion, to the point that some don't even feel the need to define themselves as atheists since the word only has force in a context of inter-faith disputes, which have little value when the believers are so few.
** They also point out that it's liberals in religious circles who are trying to keep pace with the modern world, either by inter-faith dialogues, acknowledging criticism of the Bible's text, considering ordination of women as priests, open acceptance of homosexuality and so on. It's important to note that this existential question has also been embraced by religious writers such as former nun Karen Armstrong, who argue that atheist and secular critiques are important for religious organizations to confront if they want to play a real meaningful role in the future.

** First, as the popular quip goes, atheism is a religion as much as baldness is a hair color, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term "atheism" refers to nothing more than the ''absence'' of a single doctrine-not to a complete moral system.
** Second, "atheism" is more on the level of "monotheism" or "polytheism" than "Christian" or "Muslim", or "Hindu" or "Sikh". It tells you how many gods the person believes in (zero) without telling you anything about what they precisely believe about the world or which rules they live by beyond that.

* Many atheists believe that religious organizations generally do more harm than good to society, and some may even quote [[http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/10/does-religion-benefit-society.html scientific studies]] on the subject; and for atheists who are not certain God doesn't exist, they generally think that if one exists [[TheGodsMustBeLazy he's not doing much good]] compared to the harm caused by [[CorruptChurch religious organizations]] overall.

* That said, some atheists take the opposite route and believe that religion is positive and enriching, but they are less likely to advertise their atheism-indeed, some atheists go so far as to pretend to be theists and become priests and suchlike because they still think that their chosen religion is a positive force, even if they don't believe that its central claims are true. Others more openly join nontheistic religions such as those listed above, or those who accept nontheists (for instance Unitarian Universalism).
* There are others who don't really care about religion at all and don't think much about it. But even in their indifference such atheists still don't usually take kindly to people trying to convert them and/or make them feel bad or inadequate about their atheism or assuming they are automatically evil ''just because'' they're atheists. In general, it's when organized religion starts having a negative impact on others that most atheists have a problem with it.

* Most atheists believe that the scientific method is a valid and valuable means of learning about nature, and many are in line with the view that science is good. Many also feel that religious claims are contradicted by science in one sense or another, either because they lack proof, or they have been ''dis''proven, or they should be ruled out ''a priori'' for reasons of scientific philosophy. However, the question of whether science and religion are "incompatible" (and what that question means, exactly) is contentious, and is one of the things that separates "new atheists" and "accomodationists". Many theists and some atheists agree that religion deals with separate issues or questions than science (so that, e.g., it doesn't make sense to ask for scientific proof of a miracle) while some atheists argue that they do in fact deal with the same issues, and religions simply have it all wrong. Some theists argue, conversely, that science can give evidence ''for'' miracles.

* Trying to convert an atheist to "save his soul" will usually lead to annoyance or ridicule. Save yourself the trouble. Similarly, promising that "I'll pray for your soul" will at best get a reply along the lines of "If you must".

* IfJesusThenAliens does not necessarily apply. Atheism and skepticism complement each other but are not synonymous. While most atheists are skeptics, not all are, and atheists are often quite willing to believe in things that they consider more likely than the existence of God (and on the other side of the coin, many theists are skeptical about psychic powers, aliens, Bigfoot, and so on). However, many vocal atheists tend to be skeptics who actively refute the existence of what could be considered "supernatural" phenomenon, as well as pseudoscientific claims.
* Lack of belief in an afterlife is not a requirement of atheism (many atheists believe that the afterlife can exist as a scientific phenomenon, not spiritual), but since 1) atheism is strongly correlated with skepticism and free-thought in general and 2) people who, for whatever reason, don't believe in the supernatural are usually atheists, the two tend to coincide. This does ''not'' mean that atheists believe in TheNothingAfterDeath; rather, those who don't believe in an afterlife or reincarnation view life as an event, like a fire, that has a beginning, a middle, and [[CessationOfExistence an end]]. Whatever is left of a person after they die does not really resemble a living person, any more than a pile of ashes resembles a fire.
* Atheism being strongly correlated with skepticism might be true for the US or other countries with a large religious majority, but it certainly doesn't apply to countries with an atheistic majority or large minority. In European areas like Scandinavia, (former) East Germany, the Czech Republic, etc., lots of people just grew up as atheists and believe in all kinds of superstition, astrology, pseudo-scientific stuff and New Age mysticism.
* Actual bona-fide miracles occurring (e.g. raising the dead, "impossible" healing of sickness or injury, etc.) would not be automatic proof that the Christian god is "real" in the Biblical sense. Assuming for the moment that such miracles occur, it's also possible that they are unusual yet natural happenings in our universe propelled by a mechanism we do not yet understand, or that the beings that style themselves as gods are another kind of life form that chooses to interact with us by posing as gods for some reason. There are also all those thousands of ''other gods'' people worship or have worshipped to consider.
** Interestingly, for a long period of history, the investigation of so called "miracles" and the discovery of natural explanations for these phenomena was considered an ''affirmation'' of faith (as in, "Hey, look how God made this amazing thing we thought was impossible actually happen without leaving any direct fingerprints").

* Atheism does not prescribe a system of morality or code of behavior. There is no built-in system of reward for good acts and punishment for evil ones. While some religious people would expect this to lead atheists to become {{Straw Nihilist}}s, atheists form moral codes as they grow up through their education, culture and personal reflection like everyone else. That is not an explicitly self-imposed limitation, it is the natural way things happen in a normal, sane, developing human brain.[[note]]Science has theories like ''kin selection'' and ''reciprocal altruism'' to explain how things like empathy, a sense of right and wrong, and self sacrificing behavior could have evolved.[[/note]] And it's for their benefit too, of course, as GoodFeelsGood and [[SanityHasAdvantages sanity is its own advantage]].
* [[WhatYouAreInTheDark Just like honest citizens don't need the police constantly watching over their shoulder to abide by the law, atheists don't need to have a God watching over them to do good.]]
* An atheist might view the idea that the fear of hell would be "necessary" to act morally as rather flattering: aren't they amazing, managing it without such fear? Or more critically, they might say that one should do good because virtue is its own reward, it's just the right thing to do, or it would be for the greatest benefit, not because of fear of punishment (this is the lowest on the Kolhberg scale of moral development).

** The [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule Golden Rule]], "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" (a concept which has existed since at least as early as 1780 B.C.), usually comes up.
*** Further [[FixItInPost developed]] by [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant]] into the Categorical Imperative, which generally follows "Treat others how you would want everyone to treat each other, so long as your actions exercise good will" (a clarification that stops, for example, [[LoopholeAbuse masochists from hurting other people and still being morally good]]).

*** Contrasted with [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism Kantianism above]]. Kantianism, in contrast to utilitarianism, justifies rights such as private property in spite of the happiness/suffering of others. Consider for example that you currently have two kidneys. Someone in the world is surely and currently in the need of one of the kidneys you can provide right now and will only suffer and be less happy without it. Under utilitarianism, ANY action that promotes happiness and limits suffering is morally good, therefore under some interpretations there is an [[TheNeedsOfTheMany obligation on your part to give up your kidney]] by a nominally painless surgical procedure.[[note]] Most modern utilitarians reject such reasoning on the basis that, generally speaking, [[CaptainObvious forcing people to give up organs makes them unhappy]], and knowing a society has authorized such an invasive violation of the individual leads to less happiness overall. They would have far less problem with mandating that organs be harvested from people that have died (with allowances for those with religious objections, say) a policy countries like Australia have already.[[/note]] Under Kantianism, you're only obligated to act on a rule that you yourself would want to be generally applied to society. Because a society where people are forced to give up body parts isn't ideal, nor exercises good will, you are under no obligation to render your meat stuff to the sick (and therefore have a right to your private property). Kantianism is independent of the consequential suffering of others and thereby negative responsibility. For example, say an armed gunman takes you and five other people hostage. The gunman says he'll shoot all of the other hostages except if you kill one of them yourself. As a consequence, utilitarianism might dictate that you kill one of your fellow hostages or else you'd be morally wrong for letting all of the hostages die (more suffering, less happiness). Kantianism considers that the decisions of your actions and the gunman's actions are two separate entities, i.e. you're only responsible for your own actions and the gunman for his/her own. Therefore, you're under no moral obligation to murder at gunpoint, and it is the gunman who's at fault if he therefore murders the other hostages when you refuse to accept this {{sadistic choice}}.
** Religious "moral bundles", for those who follow a religion that is compatible with atheism such as Buddhism or Jainism will build their moral code around that.

* Finally, truly cynical people are less likely to call themselves atheists where it is an unpopular label. It's easier and more rewarding to accept whatever faith is locally considered prestigious, without taking the faith seriously.

* Taking the supernatural out of the equation does remove the basis for many kinds of "meaning of life". Atheists often don't believe that there is any kind of ''universal'' meaning of life, [[TheAntiNihilist which means that they have to decide the purpose of their life on their own instead]]. This can be pretty liberating, and give a lot of [[ScrewDestiny destiny-screwing satisfaction]]. Indeed, some atheists claim that even if a higher power did exist, it would not have any right to dictate their life, and they would still choose their own purpose.

** The person who coined the term ''{{Absurdism}}'', Creator/AlbertCamus, did a significant body of work writing about this idea. The term "absurdism" comes from the idea that the conflict between the impermanence of life and human actions is a paradox and, well, absurd. To quote Wiki/TheOtherWiki on this: ''We value our lives and existence so greatly, but at the same time we know we will eventually die, and ultimately our endeavors are meaningless. While we can live with a dualism (I can accept periods of unhappiness, because I know I will also experience happiness to come), we cannot live with the paradox (I think my life is of great importance, but I also think it is meaningless).'' Camus' writings were based around the theme that the paradox, the absurd, showed that the universe was meaningless-but that human endeavors could still create meaning. Basically, that we live in a CosmicHorrorStory, where the StrawNihilist is right…but that we still, despite that, create meaning.

%%* Atheists see "faith" as a justification Christians use to (irrationally, they argue) believe that God is real despite lacking evidence.
%%* Christians see "faith" as the trust they have in the power and benevolence of God, of whose existence they are confident for other reasons.

%%HOW ARE THOSE "TWO" SENSES DIFFERENT? "FAITH" IS BELIEF/TRUST WITHOUT PROOF, WHICH SOME FIND JUSTIFIED AND OTHERS DON'T, BUT WE PRETTY MUCH AGREE ON WHAT IT IS…

Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don't talk about their religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their holy texts. Here are a few possible reasons:

* Religions [[MovingTheGoalposts move the goalposts]] as time goes by, declaring that parts that were previously considered literal truth are actually myth or parable when science has proven that it can't be literal truth, or society has evolved too much for the literal sense to be acceptable by contemporary morality. This makes it pointless to attack any specific selection of what is parable and what is literal truth, since they can always simply concede a tiny point and keep everything else unchanged.

* '''[[ReligionOfEvil Worship Satan]]''': Atheists do not believe {{Satan}} exists any more than they believe God does. Therefore, they cannot worship either. Worshiping the Devil and atheism are mutually incompatible. However, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Atheistic_Satanism there are a range of philosophies that call themselves "Satanist" without actually requiring belief in a devil]]. These are compatible.

* '''[[MachineWorship Worship Science]], UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins, [[TheSocialDarwinist Darwin's]] Theory of Natural Selection, Galileo (for [[UsefulNotes/HeresiesAndHeretics being persecuted by the Church]]), and <insert anything science-y here>''': Atheists do not worship, venerate, idolize or serve (in the religious sense) ''anything'' or ''anyone'', regardless of their stature, existence or whatever. They may ''respect'' or even admire scientists for their achievements, but they do so without thinking he or anyone else was infallible or had all the answers -- or was even necessarily a nice person. It's not as if claiming "[[AdHominem Darwin was racist]]" disproves evolutionary biology, for example.
** In the same vein, atheists do not "adhere to" or "believe in" science in the religious sense of those words. For scientific atheists, the scientific method is seen as an objective method to ascertain how pretty much everything works (or as much of it as we can figure out). It is ''not'' a dogmatic belief system. Indeed, the scientific method is based upon the principle that we do not really 'know' what is going on and we are constantly trying to learn more. The nomenclature for hypotheses, theories, and even laws is the statement that these are things which 'seem to work pretty well', not 'complete and immutable understandings'. Science assumes every theory will eventually be proven incomplete by a newer, more comprehensive theory. Therefore, saying things that put on the same level "belief in God" and "belief in science" is a sure-fire way to make most scientifically-minded atheists (which is to say, usually, the majority) [[BerserkButton really angry]]. Same with assuming that quotes from the Scriptures are worth as much as quotes from scientific journals (or more) during debates.
** You will occasionally encounter a minority who, despite claiming the above, fairly obviously ''do'' have an attitude towards "science," (or a [[StrawVulcan false, anthropomorphic projection thereof]]) which is primarily emotive and illogical. When interacting with such people, it is important to remember that they are a small minority of atheists as a whole, and that you should not allow them to give you an equally inaccurate and negative preconception, of the more genuinely rational majority of atheists that you will encounter. Honest atheists are willing to recognize and acknowledge that this obnoxious minority genuinely exists, (which is also part of the reason why [[AgentScully a number]] of tropes [[ArbitrarySkepticism have been cataloged]] describing them) and to empathize with those who find said minority annoying; but again, it must be emphasized that that is all these types are; a ''minority.''

* '''[[FlatEarthAtheist Close their minds and unfairly dismiss all supernatural claims without consideration]]''': A common mantra is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you make a convincing argument for the universe having a "first cause", an atheist might ask you how you know that that cause was intelligent, that it still exists now, and so on. To most atheists, declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can't detect it doesn't mean nobody can), it also disarms you of any objective means to ''know''.

** And some also assert that proving any kind of god wouldn't mean automatic conversion, as there are still the questions like: "Is this god worthy of worship?" Is (s)he [[GodIsGood good]], or [[GodIsEvil some of]] the [[TheGodsMustBeLazy other alternatives]]? "Does (s)he even [[StopWorshippingMe want]] to be worshipped?" etc.

* '''[[RageAgainstTheHeavens Hate God/Christians/Jews/Muslims/religious people]]''': Well, ''not all'' atheists. While there really are [[HeWhoFightsMonsters die-hard strong atheists]] [[FlameWar that you do not want to put along with fundamentalists in the same forum]] ([[VocalMinority and, as you would expect, they are over-represented in the public eye]]), being an atheist does not oblige one to despise God or the concept of him, [[OutgrownSuchSillySuperstitions look down]] on religious people, or point and laugh and say "[[YouFool Those ignorant primitives!]]" Those who do are what we like to call "{{Jerkass}}es". First, many atheists will tell you [[JesusWasWayCool numerous points on which they agree with major religious figures]]. Second, almost all atheists have friends who believe in a God and will gladly maintain that friendship as long as neither person in the relationship is a [[{{Jerkass}} jerk]] or KnightTemplar about their beliefs.
** Many atheists assert that they cannot hate that in which they do not believe, and thus the idea that they "hate" God is… well, quite strange. In a similar sense, most atheists do not believe in dragons, and as such are incapable of hating them.
** Technically, hatred of God is called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism misotheism]], and [[GodIsEvil the belief that God actually exists, but is evil]] is called dystheism or maltheism. In Wiki/TVTropes we call that [[NayTheist Nay Theism]]. In contrast, the distaste some atheists have for God ''as a fictional character'' is not related in any way to God's ''existence''. It's called "hypothetical misotheism" specifically.

** Some atheists, perhaps unexpectedly, even ''practice religions''. Atheism is quite compatible with Buddhism, secular Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism; some branches of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have atheist/agnostic members as well. That said, religious atheists are not likely to self-identify as "atheists," but instead as members of their religions. There are even atheists who attend theist churches (such as Christian Services) because they grew up in it and find it comforting, or because it is a part of their community, or because they like singing really loud where no one complains if they do badly.

** In a similar vein, most atheists will not make a conscious effort to avoid religious exclamations that have long been a cultural norm, such as "oh my god!", "hell no", et cetera.

*** Bear in mind that even the strongest anti-theist or anti-religious persons don't necessarily hate the members of that religion, commonly stating things such as 'you are better than your god', as they attempt to explain how the religious person is moral even in the face of a god they claim is evil. It is quite similar, perhaps ironically, to the Christian principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Other than that, atheists who believe that religious belief stems from childhood indoctrination tend to go to the logical conclusion that religious people never made any choice to be religious, and cannot hate them or despise them because of their unchosen beliefs.

* '''Adhere to [[StrawNihilist Moral Nihilism]] / [[FaithHeelTurn Deny God so they can do the wrong thing without guilt]]''': The argument goes, "Without God, who would give us right and wrong and a meaning in life?". If God disappeared, would everybody then immediately be DrivenToSuicide or default to evil? The atheist would argue [[TheAntiNihilist that there are ways to determine right and wrong (see below) and that they are capable of figuring them out on their own]], sometimes through well-thought-out reason, a search for enlightenment or just plain empathy, without needing any God or metaphysics. Buddhism and Secular Humanism (non-theistic ethical codes) might be referenced.
** Some atheists usually respond to this by pointing out that the fundamentalists aren't really moral because they're basically showing that they need a dogma to avoid becoming evil. The argument is that if the fifth commandment is the only thing stopping you from committing murder, you're not obeying out of the goodness of your heart, but because you fear divine punishment.
** Besides, this suggestion doesn't even make sense; if the "atheist" really believed there was a God who would punish actions He didn't like, they would be as averse to performing those actions as any other person who believed this (which, granted, isn't very in some cases). It would be worse than pointless to use their fake atheism as a fig leaf, since that would presumably just compound the problems they would face when God caught up with them.
** This may coincide with the concept of the "virtuous pagan", someone not of the religion or who was around before the religion in question existed and still did good works.

* '''Have an angry, bitter or depressed disposition''': The common stereotype that atheists are perpetually angry and/or defensive is often used as "proof" that atheism makes people unhappy. Ironically, atheists might be less cranky if "why are you unbelievers so mad all the time?" were a less common question.[[note]]Less ironically, the [[FandomBerserkButton continual repetition of any of these myths can have a similarly infuriating effect]].[[/note]] For one thing, the existence of angry atheists does not invalidate the existence of generally cheerful and upbeat ones (just as there are "God is love" believers as well as "[[FireAndBrimstoneHell fire and brimstone]]" [[TheFundamentalist believers]]). For another, many people have things they get upset about, and for atheists it may be the perception and treatment of atheists in society. It doesn't mean that the non-religious are angry all the time. Many atheists are simply happy, well-adjusted people, who aren't bitter at all. The stereotype seems to originate from the idea that atheists must be angry at God (see above), or that without belief in God, atheists must be unhappy all the time. Heck ''some atheists are even happier without the concept of God''.

** One study found a U-curve when happiness was plotted with the strongly religious on one side, the strongly atheistic on the other, and the more in-between/uncertain people in the middle. The most strongly atheistic and religious people were the happiest, with those caught in between the least. This implied that happiness was caused by the amount of certainty you had in your world-view, and not on the content of that belief. Or at least that those who had decided which answer they were satisfied with spent less time worrying over it than those who hadn't.
** Given the degree and severity of psychological (and sometimes sexual) abuse which has been experienced by some Christians during childhood, you may at times encounter new atheists/former Christians who appear to conform to the "angry," stereotype. This can be because they are still experiencing pain due to post traumatic stress, or it may also be due to cognitive dissonance. If reinforcement of the idea that they were going to Hell was particularly strong, then residual mind control along these lines may still cause a former Christian considerable emotional distress, even if logically they no longer have this belief.\\

When you encounter atheists or former Christians who are in this situation, it is important to remember that the main thing they need is compassion. While they may at times react to you in a similar manner to that of the proverbial wounded animal, (that is, use aggression to alienate or drive people away, etc.) their pain should not be falsely associated with atheism as a whole, but should instead be recognized as a consequence of the abuse that they have suffered. They don't need more condemnation for their anger, they need understanding and healing.

Incidentally, the reason Communism is associated with atheism is because (1) most communist philosophies denounce religion and embrace state-wide atheism, and (2) the RedScare was America's first encounter with widespread rejection of religion (one that would last for several decades). Even so, the association of Communism with irreligion is hardly perfect. As noted in the RealityIsUnrealistic page, even at the height of the USSR's power, religion was never suppressed completely, or even as much as the RedScare portrayals would have you believe. The Russian Empire had one of the largest populations of Orthodox Christians in history, and a mere few decades would not have been enough to enforce atheism over it even had the Soviets seriously tried. They didn't. While they did start trying to enforce it, practical reality made it extremely difficult to implement, and the Russian Orthodox Church remained a significant enough force in internal USSR politics that even ''Stalin'' had to play nice with them. Khrushchev did try to bring some of the sanctions back, but these were again relaxed by the Brezhnev era onward. There ''were'' antisemitic actions aplenty, but these ultimately stemmed from the long history of antisemitism in Europe, not the communist doctrine of the USSR (and it was more ethnic rather than religious persecution of Jews in any case-they were classed as a distinct ethnicity in the USSR). "Opium of the people" or not, even the USSR's doctrine had to bend to the sociopolitical demands of reality.
** Some atheists use the "political religion" ideal to argue that totalitarian systems of government are simply another form of the irrationality they see and reject in religion. Indeed, empiricism, humanism and skepticism are concepts frequently associated with atheism (or that atheists frequently associate themselves with) but are hardly the values any smart dictator wants his people to be familiar with. To use the words of Sam Harris: "The problem with Nazism and Communism is not that they are not religions, but that they are ''too much like'' religions!" albeit particularly cruel and inhuman ones. Regardless of whether one believes this to be true or not, no serious historian cites atheism as a significant factor in the rise or actions of Hitlerism or Stalinism.

* '''Spontaneously find God in foxholes''': Contrary to the popular adage, there ''are'' and have been atheists in foxholes. Sometimes it may well be the old "trauma leading them to abandon religion" as per the usual origin of the HollywoodAtheist. More often than not, however, some soldiers started as atheists and live through their horrible experiences with their atheism intact. Many such atheists find "No atheists in foxholes" shockingly insensitive to atheist soldiers who served their country well.

** A related misconception is that, in times of great danger or trauma, ''any'' atheist (soldier or otherwise) will prove to be so uncertain about his or her convictions that he or she will ''immediately'' abandon atheism and [[EasyEvangelism turn to the nearest available deity]]. While some atheists not so certain about their standpoint may do that, a lot fewer do so than what popular media would have you believe. Just as the atheist soldiers in the above example, most atheists are perfectly capable of living through horrible experiences with atheism intact. Suggestions otherwise aren't just insensitive, they're downright insulting.
** Some people use the full quote of "There are no atheists in foxholes isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes" to justify that the usage of the first part of the phrase isn't ''really'' meant to be offensive towards atheists. Such people go on to state that it's meant to portray atheists and anyone else in foxholes positively along the lines of "race, color, or creed doesn't matter" during war. Many atheists don't buy this explanation and cite that replacing "atheists" in the full quote with some other minority (like say Jews or homosexuals) illustrates perfectly how offensive the quote is at its core, as doing so would produce an instant uproar from such groups. Essentially, even the full quote comes across more as a [[YouAreACreditToYourRace You Are A Credit To Unbelievers]] statement than anything else.

** Even if this does happen sometimes, it's highly debatable what it tells us about anything. If somebody makes a desperate move when in mortal peril, does that say anything about the validity of the considered opinion they formed in complete safety?

** [[HeWhoFightsMonsters Atheism attracts fanatics just like everything else]], who believe it is not only their right but their [[CrystalDragonJesus science-given]] duty to shame, embarrass, ridicule and make fun of religion, making it uncomfortable for those who follow it. However, with the exception of [[RedScare a few totalitarian countries, past and present]], those who demand atheism by force are few, and not only does fighting "the tyranny of religion" so they can impose the tyranny of atheism [[UnwantedAssistance not help,]] they are marginalized.
*** Even those who do believe in shaming religious believers do not usually advocate laws banning religious freedom. P.Z. Myers of the blog Pharyngula is probably the most well known "Mock the religious" atheist, but he has on several occasions shown disgust at religious oppression in Middle Eastern countries.
*** One idea to add is that many conflate the term "ridicule" with "criticize" (hopefully without bias), as well as "a theist themselves being accused of wrongdoing" with "their religious doctrines being the target of the attack". Pointing out inconsistencies in a set of scriptures as objectively as possible (done mostly if people intend to teach parts of their scriptures as indisputable facts) is not the same as bashing it mindlessly as mere glorified fan-fiction; attacking someone over their actions is not the same as attacking the entire premises of their religion—if any—or all of that religion's practitioners because of said person's deeds. Finally, denouncing religious doctrines that obviously harm people should not be blindly labeled as bad. After all, other than the fact that sentient beings have rights but mere ideas don't, no idea should be above reasonable criticism, though no idea should be randomly bashed either.

* Prominent television characters who are atheists include Dr. Gregory House of ''Series/{{House}}'' and William Adama of the reimagined ''Series/{{Battlestar Galactica|2003}}''. Though never explicitly stated, Captain Picard of ''Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration'' often articulated ideas consistent with Roddenberry's brand of secular humanism (the right of civilizations to develop unimpeded, the immorality and danger of using religion as a tool of manipulation, etc…).
** In fact, atheism seems to be the norm in Star Trek. The Bajoran Prophets are [[EnergyBeings natural, though alien, beings]] (so the religion isn't supernatural, but they did spark debates between characters about where one draws the line between genuine gods and SufficientlyAdvancedAliens, and the importance of "faith" in making that determination), and Klingon tradition is that their ancestors wiped out the gods that created them for being "more trouble than they were worth". Everyone else is mostly secular, although [[Series/StarTrekVoyager later]] [[Series/StarTrekEnterprise series]]' after Roddenberry died showed religion more openly (albeit none of the majority human religions we have now, like Christianity, but that could have just been avoiding the MoralGuardians). The Series/StarTrekTheNextGeneration episode [[Recap/StarTrekTheNextGenerationS3E4WhoWatchesTheWatchers ''Who Watches The Watchers'']] was the most anti-religious/anti-theistic the show ever got, and even that was a depiction which came out of nowhere, with it [[CanonDiscontinuity never being mentioned again]].
* Although they are sometimes implicitly ascribed this status, unlike the clergy of organized religions well-known atheists like UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins and Creator/ChristopherHitchens do not actually represent other atheists in any official capacity. This is something that non-atheists sometimes have trouble with, because they are used to the idea that (for example) a Baptist minister represents a Baptist ministry, but atheists don't have ministries because atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.
** To put it another way: such people are not spokespeople for atheism. They're [[VocalMinority spokespeople for their own particular take]], which a lot of people might agree with. Any correlation between the views of popular atheists and the views of any other random atheist is purely coincidental (beyond the "we don't think gods exist" bit). It is more likely for an atheist to simply say, "This person says what I think, only more eloquently," than to treat them as persons to follow.

** Noteworthy here is that adverts by religious organizations are generally considered appeals for membership: "Join Our Church (because) we believe in X", with X automatically ruled an expression of faith or point of doctrine. Atheism operates from a purely secular perspective and constitutes a public call to action, therefore falling under a more stringent set of commercial and political advertising rules.

** One popular campaign gets pictures of local atheists along with a quote from him/her along the lines of "I'm an atheist and I'm a good person", usually with a first name and the individual's profession. Despite being a very mild example, even this has raised ire.
** Another is the [[http://www.google.com/search?q=you+can+be+good+without+god&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS441US441&nord=1&biw=1600&bih=809&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=cCy8TuK9Bom6tweqvoSvBw&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQsAQ "You can be good without God"]] campaign.
** Thirdly, there's [[http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dont-Believe-in-God-Youre-Not-Alone.html "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."]] Notice that the article's picture cuts out the bit about god.
** And ultimately, Justin Vacula decided to test how much offense he'd generate with the most inoffensive ad he could devise, a bus ad which merely said "Atheists.", with the name and web addresses of two atheist organizations. [[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/02/28/the-most-inoffensive-atheist-bus-ad-ever-rejected/ They refused to run it-too "controversial".]]
* Generation Xero Films has produced a series of Website/YouTube videos entitled "[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1NfhZ8Uc0 Anything But an Atheist]]", dealing with recent poll results that show that atheists are "the most hated and mistrusted minority population in America".
* During the cold war period most of Eastern Europe was under Soviet rule. Considering that socialism harshly shuns organized religion for propagating class differences (not entirely untrue in Marx's time), the depiction of religion in media was minuscule at best. Most works simply didn't acknowledge its existence to spare themselves from the claws of state censorship.

It's also important to note that such skepticism of religion was by no means a Western phenomenon. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, are philosophies without a deity figure, though other sects approached something resembling monotheism later on. Hinduism had materialist schools such as the Carvaka, Samkhya and Mimamsa. In China, Confucius developed a philosophy of education, curiosity, and learning that explicitly distanced itself from metaphysical and spiritual questions, noting that such concepts, even if true, were generally available and valuable to the very few, and that society as a whole should be considered with materially improving [[TheNeedsOfTheMany society as a whole]]. Likewise, Charles Darwin, in describing his voyages to South America, stated that some native tribes did not even have a word for god and organized their society without any identifiable religion (and therefore cannot explicitly be called atheists, since they never believed in god to start with), noting that it refuted the idea that religion or belief was intrinsic or heritable, rather than cultural and acquired. During the golden age of the Arab world, several writers such as Omar Khayyam, Averroes, Ibn al-Rawandi and Abu Bakr al-Razi expressed ideas that stressed education, materialism, criticized infallibility of religious truths, expressing a naturalistic worldview that would supersede religious explanations. The freethinker Al-Maʿarri likewise regarded religion as a "fable invented by the ancients". Even in the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine, a former Manichaean (an African heretical sect), stated that he considered the Bible's fantastic stories to be largely embellished to be accessible to the common man. He dismissed literal interpretations of the Bible's account for creation, noting that as and when science advanced with superior explanations, it should supplant existing Biblical interpretations. This was the defense which Galileo (who was a religious man) used—unsuccessfully—in his trial argument for heliocentrism (the dispute there being over whether heliocentrism ''was'' a better explanation-most scientists at the time didn't think so).

Modern atheism first found voice in the course of UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and UsefulNotes/TheFrenchRevolution, largely as a consequence of the debate about separation between church and state. It was accompanied by UsefulNotes/{{Deism}} at first. Philosophers such as Spinoza, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated belief in a distant, immaterial, non-human deity who governed by natural—i.e. ''scientific''—laws. Deism attacked Christian intolerance and superstition and advocated science and democracy. The deists argued that religion should have no place in politics and that society should be free to discuss different ideas and should have total religious tolerance. In the Revolution, graffiti stating "Death is an Eternal Sleep" often defaced churches and cemeteries. Cathedrals and altar pieces were subject to petty and creative vandalism, giving free public expression to atheist ideas for the first time in Western history. During the ReignOfTerror, atheist and deist revolutionaries briefly dechristianized France entirely. Inspired by the Revolution, romantic poets like Percy Shelley wrote a pamphlet titled "The Necessity of Atheism", and the idea was common in Romantic, Revolutionary and Decadent circles. Politically and philosophically, UsefulNotes/FriedrichNietzsche noted that with the Revolution, "God is Dead"—''i.e.'', the all-powerful ideal of God, even among liberal believers, was not the same in an age gradually supplanted by scientific, philosophical and political changes. He argued that the end of Christianity (or any other single belief as dominating Western culture) would lead to a period of nihilism from which people would then be free to create their own values and moral code. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution sparked a major change in Victorian England and, much later, America, since it provided a scientific explanation for human origins that no longer required an anthropomorphic deity to shape it for human purpose.

* Beginning with the obvious: atheists ''don't'' believe that gods exist. As previously mentioned, this is not as rigid a position as you might expect; some self-identified agnostics will give as high as even odds that a god exists, and all but the most confident atheists grant scarcely less credence to the existence of a god than they do to the existence of a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope jackalope]]. And, as also previously mentioned, people can also be atheists simply by never having considered whether or not gods exist-implicit atheism. Such a position by necessity is not rigid ''at all'': technically, ''every human being'' is born an implicit atheist.

* Trying to convert an atheist to "save his soul" will usually lead to annoyance or ridicule. Save yourself the trouble.

** The person who coined the term ''{{Absurdism}}'', Creator/AlbertCamus, did a significant body of work writing about this idea. The term "absurdism" comes from the idea that the conflict between the impermanence of life and human actions is a paradox and, well, absurd. To quote TheOtherWiki on this: ''We value our lives and existence so greatly, but at the same time we know we will eventually die, and ultimately our endeavors are meaningless. While we can live with a dualism (I can accept periods of unhappiness, because I know I will also experience happiness to come), we cannot live with the paradox (I think my life is of great importance, but I also think it is meaningless).'' Camus' writings were based around the theme that the paradox, the absurd, showed that the universe was meaningless-but that human endeavors could still create meaning. Basically, that we live in a CosmicHorrorStory, where the StrawNihilist is right…but that we still, despite that, create meaning.

* In London, an Atheist Bus Campaign decided to raise £11,000 to counter the evangelizing of religious groups, and Lo and Behold, atheists put aside their differences and stumped up the cash. Richard Dawkins offered to match the first £5,500 worth of donations. The target was reached within a few hours of the website going live and the money kept coming. After 4 or so days the final amount raised was about £150,000. TheOtherWiki has more information [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign here]].

** They also point out that it's liberals in religious circles who are trying to keep pace with the modern world, either by inter-faith dialogues, acknowledging criticism of the Bible's text, considering ordination of women as priests, open acceptance of homosexuality and so on. Even if they become really liberal, pro-science and solve their conservative issues, the fundamental problem of a real meaningful role for religion in a modern society remains a main issue. It's important to note that this existential question has also been embraced by religious writers such as former nun Karen Armstrong, who argue that atheist and secular critiques are important for religious organizations to confront if they want to play a real meaningful role in the future.

[[folder:Atheism Myths]]

** Technically, hatred of God is called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism misotheism]], and [[GodIsEvil the belief that God actually exists, but is evil]] is called dystheism or maltheism. In TVTropes we call that [[NayTheist Nay Theism]]. In contrast, the distaste some atheists have for God ''as a fictional character'' is not related in any way to God's ''existence''. It's called "hypothetical misotheism" specifically.

In terms of atheism as it means today—''i.e.'', a system of ethics and philosophy drawn from science and empiricism which is non-supernatural—the Greek Sophists and Atomists were more important. They were the ones who started criticizing Greek myths as merely elaborate fabrications of Kings and Emperors raised to Gods. They also started describing the natural world using language stripped of metaphors. To them, Greek myths and its multiple gods were merely anthropomorphized representations of natural phenomena and fancy metaphors. The philosopher Theodoros of Cyrene even exposed the Elusinian MysteryCult and criticized religion as largely a money-making scam in terms that are fairly modern. This more skeptical worldview can also be seen in the plays of Creator/{{Euripides}}, roughly contemporary to these changes. He was often accused by critics of lacking in piety; in his plays, gods and Greek heroes are often depicted in down-to-earth fashion, speaking everyday language, as opposed to the more religious plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Epicurus, who was inspired by these writers, charted out the first coherent materialist ideology. Although Epicurus acknowledged the existence of gods, by describing the problem of evil, he stated that if the Gods existed, then it was unlikely that human suffering mattered to such beings, and that it made little sense organizing life and ethics [[BlueAndOrangeMorality based on a morality]] alien to humanity. He also denied the existence of an afterlife and stressed the importance and vitality of the visible world.

* Actual bona-fide miracles occurring (e.g. raising the dead, "impossible" healing of sickness or injury, etc.) would not be automatic proof that the Christian god is "real" in the Biblical sense. Assuming for the moment that such miracles occur, it's also possible that they are unusual yet natural happenings in our universe propelled by a mechanism we do not yet understand, or that the beings that style themselves as gods are another kind of life form that chooses to interact with us by posing as gods for some reason. There are also all those thousands of ''other gods'' people worship or have worshiped to consider.

** And some also assert that proving any kind of god wouldn't mean automatic conversion, as there are still the questions like: "Is this god worthy of worship?" Is (s)he [[GodIsGood good]], or [[GodIsEvil some of]] the [[TheGodsMustBeLazy other alternatives]]? "Does (s)he even [[StopWorshippingMe want]] to be worshiped?" etc.

** People with problems in modern society, even ones who call themselves believers, will necessarily consult therapists or psychologists, family and friends, form communities based on shared interests. Charitable works and political causes, as well as human rights problems, are the domain of government watch-dogs, rights group, UN and [=NGOs=]. Art and architecture are no longer patronized by the Church. This argument essentially sees religion in need of solving existential questions to justify its function, rather than atheists having to do so. Its become possible in developed European nations to go through life without really thinking deeply or meaningful about religion, to the point that citizens don't even feel the need to call themselves "atheist" since the word only has force in a context of inter-faith disputes, which have little value when the believers are so few.

** [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism]] (in a nutshell, [[ForHappiness happiness good, suffering bad. More specifically, they advocate the greatest good for the greatest number).

** Second, "atheism" is more on the level of "monotheism" or "polytheism" than "Christian" or "Sikh". It tells you how many gods the person believes in (zero) without telling you anything about what they precisely believe about the world or which rules they live by beyond that.

It's also important to note that such skepticism of religion was by no means a Western phenomenon. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, are philosophies without a deity figure, though other sects approached something resembling monotheism later on. Hinduism had materialist schools such as the Carvaka, Samkhya and Mimamsa. In China, Confucius developed a philosophy of education, curiosity, and learning that explicitly distanced itself from metaphysical and spiritual questions, noting that such concepts, even if true, were generally available and valuable to the very few, and that society as a whole should be considered with materially improving TheNeedsOfTheMany. Likewise, Charles Darwin, in describing his voyages to South America, stated that some native tribes did not even have a word for god and organized their society without any identifiable religion (and therefore cannot explicitly be called atheists, since they never believed in god to start with), noting that it refuted the idea that religion or belief was intrinsic or heritable, rather than cultural and acquired. During the golden age of the Arab world, several writers such as Omar Khayyam, Averroes, Ibn al-Rawandi and Abu Bakr al-Razi expressed ideas that stressed education, materialism, criticized infallibility of religious truths, expressing a naturalistic worldview that would supersede religious explanations. The freethinker Al-Maʿarri likewise regarded religion as a "fable invented by the ancients". Even in the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine, a former Manichaean (an African heretical sect), stated that he considered the Bible's fantastic stories to be largely embellished to be accessible to the common man. He dismissed literal interpretations of the Bible's account for creation, noting that as and when science advanced with superior explanations, it should supplant existing Biblical interpretations. This was the defense which Galileo (who was a religious man) used—unsuccessfully—in his trial argument for heliocentrism (the dispute there being over whether heliocentrism ''was'' a better explanation-most scientists at the time didn't think so).

** [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism]] (in a nutshell, happiness good, suffering bad).
*** Contrasted with [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism Kantianism above]]. Kantianism, in contrast to utilitarianism, justifies rights such as private property in spite of the happiness/suffering of others. Consider for example that you currently have two kidneys. Someone in the world is surely and currently in the need of one of the kidneys you can provide right now and will only suffer and be less happy without it. Under utilitarianism, ANY action that promotes happiness and limits suffering is morally good, therefore under some interpretations there is an obligation on your part to give up your kidney by a nominally painless surgical procedure.[[note]] Most modern utilitarians reject such reasoning on the basis that, generally speaking, forcing people to give up organs makes them unhappy, and knowing a society has authorized such an invasive violation of the individual leads to less happiness overall. They would have far less problem with mandating that organs be harvested from people that have died (with allowances for those with religious objections, say) a policy countries like Australia have already.[[/note]] Under Kantianism, you're only obligated to act on a rule that you yourself would want to be generally applied to society. Because a society where people are forced to give up body parts isn't ideal, nor exercises good will, you are under no obligation to render your meat stuff to the sick (and therefore have a right to your private property). Kantianism is independent of the consequential suffering of others and thereby Negative Responsibility. For example, say an armed gunman takes you and five other people hostage. The gunman says he'll shoot all of the other hostages except if you kill one of them yourself. As a consequence, utilitarianism might dictate that you kill one of your fellow hostages else you'll be morally wrong for letting all of the hostages die (more suffering, less happiness). Kantianism considers that the decisions of your actions and the gunman's actions are two separate entities, i.e. you're only responsible for your own actions and the gunman for his/her own. Therefore, you're under no moral obligation to murder at gunpoint, and it is the gunman who's at fault if he therefore murders the other hostages when you refuse to accept this {{sadistic choice}}.

* An atheist might view the idea that the fear of hell would be "necessary" to act morally as rather flattering: aren't they amazing, managing it without such fear? Or more critically, they might say that one should do good because virtue is it's own reward, it's just the right thing to do, or it would be for the greatest benefit, not because of fear of punishment (this is the lowest on the Kolhberg scale of moral development).

* Atheists are more concerned with the literal, extremist religious fringe, who do more harm to society. And those are who they address. This is particularly aggravating because the two sides are often political allies, for example in defending the separation of church and state.

* Most atheists believe that the scientific method is a valid and valuable means of learning about nature, and many are in line with the ScienceIsGood view. Many also feel that religious claims are contradicted by science in one sense or another, either because they lack proof, or they have been ''dis''proven, or they should be ruled out ''a priori'' for reasons of scientific philosophy. However, the question of whether science and religion are "incompatible" (and what that question means, exactly) is contentious, and is one of the things that separates "new atheists" and "accomodationists". Many theists and some atheists agree that religion deals with separate issues or questions than science (so that, e.g., it doesn't make sense to ask for scientific proof of a miracle) while some atheists argue that they do in fact deal with the same issues, and religions simply have it all wrong. Some theists argue, conversely, that science can give evidence ''for'' miracles.

* There's also a strain in atheism, what is regarded as being its secular strain, at least among some European writers, where it is a sentiment that doesn't come from opposition or hostility to religion. These writers will admit that religion has moments of beauty and truth, and admit that the negative aspects of Christianity can't be regarded as its core tenets. Their critique is simply: what can Christianity, even the beautiful nice kind, provide to people who live in the modern world?

*** Bear in mind that even the strongest anti-theist or anti-religious persons don't necessarily hate the members of that religion, commonly stating things such as 'you are better than your god', as they attempt to explain how the religious person is moral even in the face of a god they claim is evil. It is quite similar, perhaps ironically, to the Christian principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin. Other than that, athiests who believe that religious belief stems from childhood indoctrination tend to go to the logical conclusion that religious people never made any choice to be religious, and cannot hate them or despise them because of their unchosen beliefs."

*** Bear in mind that even the strongest anti-theist or anti-religious persons don't necessarily hate the members of that religion, commonly stating things such as 'you are better than your god', as they attempt to explain how the religious person is moral even in the face of a god they claim is evil. It is quite similar, perhaps ironically, to the Christian principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin."

** The person who coined this term ''{{Absurdism}}'', Albert Camus, did a significant body of work writing about this idea. The term 'absurdism' comes from the idea that the conflict between the impermanence of life and human actions is a paradox and, well, absurd. To quote TheOtherWiki on this: ''We value our lives and existence so greatly, but at the same time we know we will eventually die, and ultimately our endeavors are meaningless. While we can live with a dualism (I can accept periods of unhappiness, because I know I will also experience happiness to come), we cannot live with the paradox (I think my life is of great importance, but I also think it is meaningless).'' Camus' writings were based around the theme that the paradox, the absurd, showed that the universe was meaningless-but that human endeavors could still create meaning. Basically, that we live in a CosmicHorrorStory, where the StrawNihilist is right…but that we still, despite that, create meaning.

* Actual bona-fide miracles occurring (e.g. raising the dead, "impossible" healing of sickness or injury, etc.) would not be automatic proof that the Christian god is "real" in the Biblical sense. Assuming for the moment that such miracles occur, it's also possible that they are unusual, yet natural happenings in our universe propelled by a mechanism we do not yet understand, or that the beings that style themselves as gods are another kind of life form that chooses to interact with us by posing as gods for some reason. There are also all those thousands of ''other gods'' people worship or have worshiped to consider.
** Interestingly, for a long period of history, the investigation of so called "miracles" and the discovery of naturalist explanations for the phenomena was considered an ''affirmation'' of faith (as in, "Hey, look how God made this amazing thing we thought was impossible actually happen without leaving any direct fingerprints")

* Atheism does not prescribe a system of morality or code of behavior. There is no built-in system of reward for good acts and punishment for evil ones. While some religious people would expect this to lead atheists to become {{Straw Nihilist}}s, atheists form moral codes as they grow up, through their education, culture and personal reflection, like everyone else. That is not an explicitly self-imposed limitation, it is the natural way things happen in a normal, sane, developing human brain[[note]]Science has theories like ''kin selection'' and ''reciprocal altruism'' to explain how things like empathy, a sense of right and wrong, and self sacrificing behavior could have evolved.[[/note]]. And it's for their benefit too, of course, as GoodFeelsGood, and [[SanityHasAdvantages sanity is its own advantage]].

** The [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule Golden Rule]] "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" (a concept which has existed since at least as early as 1780 B.C.) usually comes up.

*** Contrasted with [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism Kantianism]]. Kantianism, unlike utilitarianism, justifies rights such as private property in spite of the happiness/suffering of others. Consider for example that you currently have two kidneys. Someone in the world is surely and currently in the need of one of the kidneys you can provide right now and will only suffer and be less happy without it. Under utilitarianism, ANY action that promotes happiness and limits suffering is morally good, therefore under some interpretations there is an obligation on your part to give up your kidney by a nominally painless surgical procedure[[note]] Most modern utilitarians reject such reasoning on the basis that, generally speaking, forcing people to give up organs makes them unhappy, and knowing a society has authorized such an invasive violation of the individual leads to less happiness overall. They would have far less problem with mandating that organs be harvested from people that have died (with allowances for those with religious objections, say) a policy countries like Australia have already[[/note]]. Under Kantianism, you're only obligated to act on a rule that you yourself would want to be generally applied to society. Because a society where people are forced to give up body parts isn't ideal, nor exercises good will, you are under no obligation to render your meat stuff to the sick (and therefore have a right to your private property). Kantianism is independent of the consequential suffering of others and thereby Negative Responsibility. For example, say an armed gunman takes you and five other people hostage. The gunman says he'll shoot all of the other hostages except if you kill one of them yourself. As a consequence, utilitarianism might dictate that you kill one of your fellow hostages else you'll be morally wrong for letting all of the hostages die (more suffering, less happiness). Kantianism considers that the decisions of your actions and the gunman's actions are two separate entities, i.e. you're only responsible for your own actions and the gunman for his/her own. Therefore, you're under no moral obligation to murder at gunpoint, and it is the gunman who's at fault if he therefore murders the other hostages when you refuse to accept this {{sadistic choice}}.