The Atheist Blogger

Shhh! I haven’t got much time, and I need to tell the world before THEY find me and delete this. The world needs to know the TRUTH, and THEY will stop at nothing to stop me!

Atheists claim to not believe in gods, but this is a lie. Deep down they really know there is a God, but they don’t like what this means and so they lie about what they believe. So remember, the next time you meet an atheist, despite them claiming that they have no belief in gods, they secretly know that He exists!

…or so some people like to claim, like David if he is reading this. David is an acquaintance of mine; we do the same course; we talk about computing often. David is a nice chap. David is also a Christian who is on a mission to convert my soul to Jesus. He is a member of Royal Holloway’s unofficial Christian Union, which I attend for the fun and cakes.

Tonight I went along, wearing a t-shirt that says “Thank God I’m an Atheist”. It’s meant to be ironic, an atheist thanking “God”, but the joke is lost on some people. Some people have said I am “stupid” for wearing it because it is contradictory. Some people have no sense of humour.

Whether or not David understood the t-shirt or not isn’t the issue, it never came up. What is the issue is his insistence that whilst I say I do not believe in God, I really know he exists “deep down”. To him, this is a good argument. To me, this is an insult. It is not only implying I am a liar, but also that I am stupid. Only a stupid person would choose not to believe (and thereby end up with a one-way ticket to Hell) if they knew that God existed.

So no David, I do not “know” God exists deep down. I do not know if God exists at all, and I think the existence of God is somewhat unknowable, at least for myself. Since I do not know if God exists or not, and I have seen no reason to believe one does, I also do not believe in gods. This brings me quickly to the second point I wanted to outline:

Agnostic atheists do exist.

Trust me, they do. Just ask the vast majority of atheist readers of my blog, and I’m sure they will be happy to tell you. That said, I’m glad you actually understood the definition of agnosticism. You were quite right in saying it states that “God is unknowable”. Where you get confused is where this links in with atheism. I could go on about how knowledge and belief cover different things, but I suspect there are far better sites out there that handle it much better than I could.

So no David, despite what you might think, I am not an agnostic instead of an atheist, I am both.

I do hope you take my advice, go to Google, and search for “Agnostic Atheism”. In fact, if you are reading this (and I hope you are), here is a link. The first three results (Wikipedia, All About Philosophy, and About.com) all have material you should read on the subject, and hopefully the next time you wish to talk about atheism/religion, you’ll have the decency to respect my views as I respect yours.

See you in class tomorrow,

Adrian

A lot has been happening with my student group at Royal Holloway, the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance since we started our leaflet campaign. Although we were only able to hand out roughly half of the flyers due to bad weather (a sign from God perhaps?), a few new members have joined our ranks.

Among the first to contact me was a guy named Dan who demonstrated the remarkably small world we live in by revealing that we are actually next door neighbours. Since then he has made an admirable effort to help hand out flyers, which usually ended up with us in the student bar having a drink.

One of our members from last year, Jack Lenox, put me in contact with another student who was trying to form a Humanist Alliance at Royal Holloway, unaware that the AAA was actually around. He got a lot of facebook support, and we have decided to join forces under an umbrella group. The new group, which will probably be called something like “Royal Holloway Secular Students” is going to include the sub-groups of Humanism and the AAA, since the Humanism group already has a number of theist members. Group meetings will take place at the same time, with us talking about broader secular subjects at the start, and then turning over to the “militant atheist wing” (us) at the end.

I have also penned my first column for “The Atheist Column” in the student newspaper The Founder, which should come out within the next week or so. I decided to respond to a few people who had questioned me over the usage of the term “Bright” on the flyers.

Are the “Brights” worth it?

During freshers’ week, members of the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance handed out flyers that explained the term “Bright” as a positive word for someone who lives without supernatural or spiritual notions. Founded in America in 2003, the Brights movement sought to replace the label of “godless” with something that wasn’t anti-, or non- anything, much in the same way that the term “gay” is now used to describe homosexuals.

In the harsh religious environment of America, where to be an atheist means both social and political discrimination, this idea holds some weight. In the UK though, the vast majority of people would call themselves secular, seeing religion as something that shouldn’t interfere with politics. Indeed, where in the USA an atheist would never get to high levels of public office (without lying about their beliefs), the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, does not believe in God. So should the term “Bright” still be used?

I think instead of using the Brights as a platform for change, we should use the organisation purely to group people of similar worldviews together. The Brights have meetings all over the UK, open to people who subscribe to different labels, whether it be atheism, agnosticism, humanism, scepticism, and many more. As for trying to enforce the meaning of the word, I think efforts should instead be focused on changing the public perceptions of the original terms. “Bright” is a great word for describing people who hold no supernatural worldview, but it doesn’t cover individual positions on belief in gods. Both atheists and secularists can be Brights, but whilst an atheist does not believe in gods, a secularist might.

What was clear though, from a number of people I spoke to during freshers’ week, is that the term “Bright” is very vague in who it encompasses. Some Brights will argue that it is a strictly non-believing organisation, whilst others will insist that as long as you do not use the supernatural to make decisions, you are welcome. In fact the only people who I think do not belong in the Brights group are those who actively participate in faith healing, psychic readings, or active prayer and other similar activities.

The Atheist & Agnostic Alliance’s relationship with the Brights is really one of “business only”. They were kind enough to make good looking flyers at low cost, and they are a great source of speakers for the “godless” events we are planning this year. Other than that, the groups should keep separate.

If all goes well, this should be an interesting year for Royal Holloway. Watch out for the infidel invasion!

Bill Maher is a great guy, both with his comedy and with his views on religion. He is a problem for most atheists out there though, because of his views on atheism. Maher always states he is an “agnostic”, and I have no problem with him claiming that. I don’t exactly agree with his definition of that either, but I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon.

When anything comes up about atheism, Bill Maher reacts in the same way, by claiming that atheists are people who “are certain there is no God”. This portrays atheists in a negative light, because there are very few people who actually would agree with this definition. An atheist is not someone who makes a statement about God’s non-existence, but one who makes a statement about their disbelief/lack of belief/non-belief in God.

The Atheist Jew wrote a great article on this subject, which provoked me into writing my opinions here. The Atheist Jew argues

I have a feeling he is just trying to appeal to the masses by not labeling himself as an atheist. A term that causes many a theist to flinch. By labeling himself as agnostic, he is just trying to be accepted.

It is evident in everything he says beyond avoiding the atheism label, that he is an atheist.

An atheist doesn’t have to say “there is no God, or no afterlife.” Most of us say or thin that “there is no evidence for God or an afterlife, so why even consider something that has no evidence to back it up?”

As an agnostic atheist myself, I’m not against agnosticism at all, and I think Bill Maher is doing a great job making people question the “unquestionable” beliefs of religion. However, he should realise that agnosticism and atheism are not views on the same thing. Following a view of “I don’t know” is fine, but if the question is “Do you believe in God?” and you do not, then you are an atheist.

It is a shame that in a world where information is free and open to everyone, Bill Maher hasn’t read the article on atheism from Wikipedia, or even browsed an online dictionary to find out the general views on such words. On The Atheist Jew’s blog, I made a comment in which I proposed my idea:

Send Bill Maher and open letter from a few atheist bloggers.

The way I see it, there are a load of atheist bloggers who have been publicizing the movie because of it’s stance on religion. We are giving it the thumbs up, and we are doing it for free, because we think it is the right thing to do. However I suspect that quite a few of these bloggers would feel offended for the same reasons I have gone over here, simply because Bill Maher is painting his most loyal supporters with a negative image.

In the letter, I propose we thank Bill Maher for all he has done to expose religion for the ridiculous beliefs it is comprised of, and argue our case, including the standard definitions you find in most dictionaries, perhaps suggest a few articles from Wikipedia and About.com, and ask him to stop putting atheists down.

If this were a fundamentalist preacher saying these things, we would all have a rant about how misunderstood people are on the concept of atheism, but when it is one of our own (a self-hating atheist perhaps?) the issue suddenly disappears. Perhaps people have too much respect for Bill Maher to do anything, but when it is someone who we can guarantee has an open mind (unlike the fundamentalist preacher) I think we should act on it.

What do you all think?

I was contacted a couple of days ago by a representative of Current TV:

I am writing from Current TV in the hopes of persuading you to record a quick Point of View webcam in regards to a half hour special we here at Current TV are producing on the topic of religion. We will be using webcam comments as interstitials in the show, in the hopes of gaining a real authentic look @ how people relate to religion today. Of course, your blog came up as a good resource for atheists, and we want to be sure you are represented.

When I queried further, they asked for a video of my “point of view on religion, in 30 seconds or less”. That is actually quite a challenge, and I’d much prefer to take up the entire half hour special explaining my complex opinions on religion. However, 30 seconds is all I’ve got, so I’ll have to somehow compress it down a bit.

No idea when I have until to do the video, or when the program runs on Current TV, but I’ll update you with more information when it comes, and also with my video.

Unrelated: Tomorrow marks the day we start to hand out leaflets for the Atheist & Agnostic Alliance, and hopefully we start getting somewhere towards ratification with the Student Union.

Law professor Douglas Whaley has written a book which he describes as an “atheist thriller”. He was kind enough to send me the following synopsis and information.

Franklin Whitestone, a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, is trapped in the rubble of the Ohio State football stadium when a Muslim terrorist sets off a bomb. During the rescue Franklin becomes a hero by holding onto a girder while allowing over 50 people to escape. This is  captured on television, and is the one bright spot in the what becomes known as  “9/11 Two.”  Franklin is flown to New York City for an appearance on the Jimmy Ball Show (the equivalent to the Larry King program). Accompanying him to NYC is his significant other, Kelly Keyfold, and since the two of them are the guests of the tv show, they dine at a fancy restaurant where Kelly insists on a bottle of wine, telling Franklin it would be good for his nerves to have one glass himself. He does this, but at some point during the meal a  waiter refills his goblet, and so he drinks two glasses of wine. At the studio, Franklin is shown into the green room, where the first guest on the Jimmy Ball Show, a rummy comedian, offers him a drink from a flask. Franklin at first refuses, but, unused to national tv and shaken to his very core, he finally takes another sip. Of course, this proves unwise.

When Franklin goes on the air, the video clip of his heroics is shown and applauded, and then he and the host answer call-in questions from the live audience. One of the callers is a woman from Salt Lake City, and she asks him whether he was praying to God to give him strength during his heroics, and—his judgment clouded by alcohol—Franklin blithely says no. “God,” he tells her, “was not the solution, but the problem—belief in him is what caused the bombs to go off.” This sparks outraged calls from other viewers, and Franklin
makes some other ill-considered statements along this same unfortunate line. When asked by the host if he is an atheist, Franklin replies:

“Let me put it like this, Jimmy. When I was a child I had an imaginary friend who was with me everywhere I went, helping me out, very real to me. I loved him with all my heart. But as I got older I didn’t need that crutch anymore, and one day he just wasn’t there, nor did I miss him. As an adult I’d be embarrassed if I still needed an imaginary friend to help me run my life.”

Of course, saying this is a mistake of major magnitude, as is made clear to Franklin when his life blows up on many fronts, starting minutes after he’s off the air.

The book has much to say about theism versus atheism, and the role of each in today’s society (I am a lifelong professional teacher and this is a subject about which I am passionate). But the novel is much more than that. There is quite a bit of humor in it, as well as a number of action sequences (and some violent encounters). I would hope that anyone picking up the book would find it an entertaining read.

The book can be ordered from Amazon.com ($15.00).

Finally, let me add that I know this is a delicate and controversial subject, and I have tried to handle it in a way that is fair to all viewpoints. The reader can judge for him/herself whether I have succeeded or whether to join the crowd gathering tar and feathers. I would love to hear any and all comments readers have about the  book, and my email address for making them is in the “Author’s Note” at the end of the novel.

Douglas Whaley

---

The book is currently only out in America, so we can’t add it to the book club list, but if anyone reads it please write a review. Many thanks to Douglas for passing this information on, and best of luck with the book!