Conservapedia:Atheism

[edit] Conservapedia's Atheism text, verbatim and complete

[edit] RationalWiki Responses

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of God.[2][3] The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.

By framing atheism as "the denial of the existence of God," CP's definition posits the existence of God as being an established fact, putting the onus of proof on the atheist who is denying that which exists. This, of course, conveniently bypasses the need to objectively prove that God exists, something which, to date, no one has managed to do, or even come close to doing.

It probably is also notable that the phrases "which will be elaborated on shortly" and "which will be addressed" are not very encyclopedic terms for "the trustworthy encyclopedia" and are quite typical of the longer CP articles where a decent, balanced introduction seems to be too much to ask for.

There are different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:

• What God or gods does the atheist deny?
• Why does the atheist deny?
• How does the atheist's denial manifest itself?

• All of them, from Allah through Zeus.
• There may be as many reasons for this as there are atheists, but for most atheists, it probably comes down to the lack of convincing evidence.
• Varies wildly, from indifference to hostility to condescending pity.

Since atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods, it is important first to identify in which God and/or gods the atheist denies. In ancient times, for example, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their denial of the pagan gods, even though they believed in the Christian God.[4] Socrates was also accused of atheism, although references to God run throughout his recorded statements. [5] Also, Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza professed belief in "God," but they defined "God" as the cosmos as a whole, and without personality.

Not much to say here that isn't already addressed above, except the passage seems to be very unsure as to whether Einstein and Spinoza were atheists or not, but lumps them in the same category as people who were 'accused' of atheism, even though, according to the article, those people clearly believed in a god.

Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist (Strong atheism which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted (Weak atheism).

See below, under 'Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism'.

There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:

• Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries.
• Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist.
• Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist. [6]

• Militant atheism: The charge that "militant atheists" are responsible for suppressing and oppressing religious believers is not backed up by any evidence. It would appear that the article is trying to link garden-variety atheists with the most murderous ideologies of the twentieth century, such as Maoism and Stalinism, which is intellectually dishonest in the extreme for two reasons: First, just because some remarkably bad people were atheists doesn't mean atheism or atheists writ large share their moral flaws. This would be akin to arguing that the Pogroms are representative of Christianity or that Osama bin Laden is representative of Islam. Second, this argument, such as it is, tries to reduce communism--a complex set of political/economic/historical and ideological beliefs--to atheism, which is a small part of what communism is about, and discounts Liberation Theology and other ways in which communism and religion have historically co-existed. Perhaps most importantly, this analysis overlooks the far more common historical phenomenon of murderous religious suppression and oppression by theists - as practiced by Christians against Jews and witches, and Muslims against Christians, Hindus and Jews, etc, etc...
• Theoretical atheism: Here, the article appears to be advancing the startling revelation that atheists do not believe that God exists.
• Practical atheism: Here, the article appears, again, to be advancing the startling revelation that those who do not believe that God exists do not pay any attention to what He supposedly said. This statement is also used as a springboard towards identifying atheists with "immoral" actions, as Conservapedia wishes you to believe that by living with regard to God's non-existence one is living immorally.

Although atheist Charles Bradlaugh in 1876 proposed the idea that atheism does not assert there is no God (by doing so he attempted to dilute the definition of atheism), since 1979 many proponents of atheism have been frequently attempting to dilute the definition of atheism to mean a mere lack of belief there is a God or gods.[7][8] One of the reasons why many proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism with greater frequency is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. [7]

In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels which is one of the principle websites for atheists, agnostics and skeptics on the internet, states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." [7] In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. [7] The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods. [2][3][7]

• Note that this appears to contradict the passage that defines the difference between 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' (Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?). That makes it clear that 'weak atheism' claims that there is no evidence of the existence of God, so belief in God is unwarranted, yet that passage still accepts this as a form of atheism. This passage dismisses that as not really atheism (and, incidentally, fails to say what this state of affairs actually is). This passage also fails to make a coherent argument as to why, exactly, atheists should bear the burden of proving the non-existence of God, but seems to take it as given that a simple lack of evidence for Him existing is not enough to fail to believe in Him. In addition, in the quote attributed to Jeffery Jay Lowder, it fails to spot that he appears to be referring to people who make a positive assertion that God definitely does not exist, rather than people who say that God probably does not exist, as there is zero evidence of Him.
• This is really quite an extraordinary straw man argument. Let's restate it with a different subject:

Vegetarianism is bad, because you don't get enough B12. Many modern vegetarians define "vegetarianism" as meaning "you can eat eggs, too", but they only do this in order to get B12.

And then the article goes on to explain how and why vegetarians don't get enough B12.

So the question becomes: are you attempting to address the nutritional value of a vegetarian diet as it is actually practised; or as you think, in theory, it should be? If the former, then it doesn't matter why egg-eating people insist on describing themselves as 'vegetarian'. If the latter, then this argument has nothing to do with the real world of real vegetarians.

Of course, what is really going on is two things:

1. Simple sour grapes that atheists won't play by their rules and use (what they think to be) an easy-to-knock-down position.
2. A belief that Atheism (capital 'A') is a spiritual force in its own right, a miasma that affects people, and that the affected people don't really understand its nature.

The psalmist David wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and Moses simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). [9]

Accordingly, the psalmist David wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1 (KJV)

The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies the existence of God, when he wrote the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:19-20 (NKJV)

Using the Bible to criticize atheism is an example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. What is particularly striking is that the authority being appealed to is a book that is by definition irrelevant to atheists. Essentially, the argument here is: "Here's what a god that cannot in fact exist has to say about your positing its non-existence." This means that this is about as relevant as the various passages about infidels and unbelievers in the Qu'ran would be to an article on Christianity - interesting, perhaps, but completely irrelevant as to whether or not Christianity is a valid belief system.

When used in particular as an argument against atheism, it is an obvious example of "begging the question" (circular reasoning), and not just once, but at a number of different levels:

1. God exists.
2. Yahweh (the Bible God) is this God.
3. God inspired the Bible such that it is infallible.
4. The Bible says atheists are fools.
5. Therefore, atheists are fools.

Thus, to use a remark from the Bible as somehow justifying the "argument" that "atheists are fools" is merely based on assuming the truth of the points in question - which is what "begging the question" is. (This particular criticism against atheism is also ironic in the sense that using fallacious argumentation as justification for a belief is itself foolish.)

"The fool saith in his heart, "There is no God"; The wise man says it to the world."

(Note that when this verse is used to express sentiment against atheists in the context of discussing other subjects, such as creationism, rather than functioning as a begging the question fallacy, it is functioning instead as two different kinds of the general fallacy of relevance, also more popularly known as red herring,: ad hominem and an appeal to the emotions. The appeal to the emotions is in the negative sense of appealing to anti-atheist prejudice, which is fairly prevalent among religious adherents, especially in the United States.)

The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:

“ As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.[10] ”

Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist.[11][12] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

“ In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244) [13]

First of all, suggesting that notable atheists were insincere or plagued with doubt is quite an odd way of criticising atheism itself, but not exactly surprising, given that throughout the article the author heavily implies that atheism is a childish attack on faith instead of a valid viewpoint. Whatever the purpose of this section, the momentary doubts of well-known atheists in history are completely irrelevant to the arguments behind atheism itself, and if the author's aim was to suggest that atheists do not believe their own opinions, perhaps he should have provided more than two examples.

Secondly, the idea that many prominent people have trouble becoming strong atheists, but have no problem accepting God is absurd. God is not a doctrine which one believes blindly, and if one sees the problem in blindly believing this, but has some tenuousness in fully renouncing faith, one is still not accepting it. This attempts to say that "since you're not against us you're with us," and is one of the many conservative methods of promoting a black-and-white dichotomy. This may play into their section below, "Denials that Atheists Exist."

A further example of incorrect black-and-white description is this quote from Darwin, that he was a materialist. This can be refuted in one, simple, concise phrase: materialism does not equal atheism.

Henry More wrote the following: "In agony or danger, no nature is atheist. The mind that knows not what to fly to, flies to God." Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for stating that "There are no atheists in foxholes". Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated "I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn't in a front line trench." On he other hand, the news organization MSNBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.^[1]

There is, in fact, a monument to and organisation of Atheists and Freethinkers in foxholes, and many atheists have cited, amongst other things, the horrors of war as having driven their realisation that a moral God could not exist.

Also, how can you quote an atheist veteran saying there are atheists in foxholes in the same paragraph as someone saying there aren't. and still support the latter?

Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people" ^[2] and "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." ^[3]

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."^[4] The theory of evolution played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism. ^{[5] [6]} Communists, in particular Stalinists, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. ^[7]. Lysenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. ^[8] Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. ^[8] Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under Stalin and Mao caused famines and the death of millions.^[7]. The atheism in communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers. ^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]}

In regards to atheism, North Korea is a repressive communist state and is officially atheistic. ^[16] The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians. ^[11][12]

China is a communist country that is also officially atheistic. ^[17] In 1999, the publication Christian Century reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship." ^[13] In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.^[14] China continues to practice religious oppression today. ^[15]

Marx may not have been as negative about religion as this quote mine might suggest. A somewhat longer quote reads: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."^[18] Furthermore some sources translate the final sentence as "an opium for the people", in the sense of an opiate painkiller such as morphine, rather than an addictive narcotic. ^[19] Marxism must be viewed as a critique of Capitalist society and not as an affirmation of God's non-existence, indeed there is a difference between 'religion' and 'God'.

Indeed, Marx was heavily influenced by Feuerbach's work on religion, which saw religion as an expression of the believers desires. Within this context, religion for the proleteriat was a means to cope with their oppression. This is comparable to Nietzsche's criticisms of religion as "slave moralities". Marx merely claimed that religion allowed the people to accept their condition rather than rise against it, and thus acted to sedate the masses. Hence it needed to be dismantled for a proletarian revolution to occur.

Many theorists regard Communism as a memeplex sharing many features with religion, including prophecy, belief in something greater than oneself, a promised land, individuals to whom the truth has been revealed, heretics, groups of true believers setting fire to other groups of different true believers, adherence to crackpot theories like Lysenkoism rather than real, objective, testable science, and a complete inability to connect to the real world.

In regards to theism vs. atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism. Arguments for the existence of God include:

• Teleological argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer
• Cosmological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that First Cause is God.
• Ontological argument: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
• Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics and archaeological evidence such as Bible archaeology;
• Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. According to philosopher Alvin Plantinga belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God.^[20]
• Presuppositional Apologetics

• Teleological argument: Scientific principles such as Evolution and the various iterations of physics demonstrate how the appearance of design can occur without a designer; for a simple demonstration of this, pour sand out of a bucket onto the same spot; if the bucket is held steady, the sand is poured onto a flat surface, and no other factors disrupt the process, a near-perfect cone will form. Who designed that cone? No one. It came into existence through the operation of the laws of physics.
• Cosmological argument: Arguing that God caused the universe begs the question: What caused God? And if God can occur uncaused, why not the universe, a much simpler system? This of course assumes everything needs a cause, which is actually false (see quantum mechanics).
• Ontological argument: The ontological argument was defined by Bertrand Russell as mostly stemming from bad grammar. This one is fallacious due to the lack of rigorous definitions for terms used as well as the assumptions it requires, most notably, the assumption that real things are "greater" than things that aren't real.
• Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, the fallible word of mentally unstable individuals living in a far more credulous time? Biblical accounts are, at best, circular reasoning and possibly the most blatant form of it.
• Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Mystical experiences can be triggered by influences such as LSD, strong magnetic fields, starvation, and societal pressures, and the kind of God one believes in can be traced to genetic and epigenetic factors.
• Presuppositional Apologetics: God exists because people who assume God exists assume he exists.

In respect to atheism and Christianity, while there have been numerous notable books by Christian apologists addressing the various issues in regards to atheism and Christianity (Creation Science, Bible Archaeology, etc.) there also number of books that have addressed the general issue of atheism in relation to Christianity. A notable book of this type is Dr. Norm Geisler's and Frank Turek's book entitled I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.^[21][22] In addition, two notable works were produced by Ravi Zacharias entitled A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism and Can Man Live Without God?^[23] Also, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart coauthored a work entitled Understanding Secular Religions .^[24] Lastly, Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled The Twilight of Atheism.^[25]

Of course they have. They are Christian apologists, their job is to write books defending Christianity or they wouldn't have any money.

In respect to atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."^[26] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.^[26]

Koukl summarized by stating:

Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:

This section says that arguments linking religion to horrific crimes committed in the name of religion are spurious, but arguments linking atheism to horrible crimes committed in the name of a philosophy that calls itself atheist (see "Atheism and Communism", above) are completely valid.

Notably, communist Russia's high death count is largely due to the purges, civil war and the subsequent famine. In these cases, the authorities justified their actions by appeal to the cult of personality surrounding Stalin. This is particularly ironic in that Stalin acted and demanded loyalty in the same fashion that YHWH does in the old testament. Whilst Marx was philosophically atheistic, Russian communism was not; it produced its own capricious rulers, and idolised them for their occasional success.

In regards to atheism and uncharitableness, charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than theists

Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research):

ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:

It should be pointed out that this is not denied by atheists. Michael Shermer points out in 'The mind of the market' that "religious people are 4 times more generous than secularists to all charities, 10 percent more munificent to non-religious charities, and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person". It's no secret that leaving organized religion will many times lead to severing of social ties which could definitely lead to decreased charitable giving; so there is a plausible causal connection to explain the statistics.

What Conservapedia fails to grasp is that this is actually an argument against Theism. Increased giving to Charity is one of the more conspicuous examples of improved in-group cooperation; one of the more popular explanations for how religion evolved. The problem is that the same biological instincts that make you feel good when giving to the donation plate will also cause you to be hostile against those who don't belong to your circle of trust. As an extreme example; the same thing that will make a Muslim help another Muslim, is also capable of making him blow up a building filled with Christians or atheists.

Some criticisms could be made of the statistics and the specific methodological problems but regardless this is still an ad hominem argument. Even if atheism turned everyone into a selfish jerk, it would have no relevance on the truth value of atheism. The truth is not decided by which group gives away the most cash.

It's also worth pointing out that many religions have positions that are downright incompatible with charity. For example, secular charities can spend millions on distributing condoms to Africa to slow down the spread of AIDS. But if Catholic priests continue telling their congregations that condoms do not prevent AIDS, the efforts of these charities become futile. What is charitable to some people may not be charitable to others and this could be a partial factor explaining the quoted statistics.

There is also a big difference in the attitude towards charity between many Theists and Atheists: while the act of giving hard currency is considered by many Theists as a means to a better afterlife, the act of helping others, not necessarily with money, is a means for Atheists to fulfill their innate sense of altruism. The practical difference is that a part of the "charity" money goes to televangelists and other false charity work, while a part of the altruistic help given by Atheists is through direct participation in noble causes (like teaching at a University instead of getting a high paying job). The dollar-for-dollar comparison does not give a complete perspective on the intention of helping others.

In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. ^[30]

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of debater Dr. Kai Nielson who advocates atheism:

Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and moral relativism:

The alleged immorality of many of the activities listed is debatable - Illegal drug use is illegal by definition, but that doesn't make it immoral, The same with excessive drinking - alcoholism is considered a type of behavioral disorder and addiction by the medical community and most certainly not caused by religious beliefs or lack of them (except possibly in the case of communion wine?). Sexual relationships outside of marriage are not necessarily immoral. Abortion is morally difficult for some, but not for all. Cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage is not immoral to many if not most people in this day and age. Obscene language, well, shucks, darn gee willikers, it could be in poor taste sometimes, but that does not make it immoral. Gambling: like at church bingo? Pornography and obscene sexual behavior are left open and undefined, and what counts as sexual immorality for one may be a harmless kink for another as long as it involves consenting adults. Engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality - nothing immoral about that.

It should also be noted that the only reference used that actually gives solid facts and figures, instead of simply being quote or two (this one), actually seems to indicate that, as well as there being a variation in what is and is not considered immoral according to whether people are atheists or not, there is also a variation depending on what faith they follow, including variations according to what type of Christian they are. In addition, some of the things Conservapedia have listed as being 'immoral' are, in fact, considered 'morally acceptable' by a great many Christians, according to this source (for example, 50% of Protestants and 66% of Catholics deemed co-habitation morally acceptable and 52% of Protestants and 70% of Catholics deemed gambling morally acceptable). Not only does this further indicate that the idea that many of these things are immoral is debatable, it destroys what seems to be the whole thrust of this section - that atheists are what Conservapedia considers immoral and religious folk are not.

There is also growing evidence that some animals (other than humans) also exhibit moral behavior. For example, female lions in Africa show altruistic behavior towards each others' cubs, improving the chances of survival of the group. The image of animals (other than humans) doing whatever they like if they have the power is just not backed up by biologists' experiences. Some knowledge of right and wrong and an effort to abide by the notion of right is evident in the behavior of every dog that has been trained. A fundamental notion of morality in many Theists' view is that it is the logical result of having a human soul, but the study of other animals refutes this.

See main article: Atheism and Miracles

In relation to atheism and miracles, modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not David Hume was an atheist.^[33] With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.^[34] Christian apologists William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, JP Holding, and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles.^{[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]}

Atheists don't believe in miracles (at least, not as anything more than a metaphor for a greatly fortuitous coincidence). The point of this particular section is lost on me, personally. The assertion that disbelief in miracles is absurd because a sophomoric apologist like C. S. Lewis says so is more absurd than the assertion it is trying to refute. The atheist world view, unlike the fundamentalist Christian world view, is built on facts. Science does not accept eyewitness accounts, for good reasons, and miracles are never more than eyewitness accounts.

This section also makes the mistake of concentrating entirely on the views of David Hume, despite the fact it even admits that it is debatable whether Hume was even an atheist. In addition, one of the sources used in this section (this one) actually quotes from John Earman, a professor of history and philosophy in science, who finds that Hume's argument is flawed, yet appears to be, at the very least, an agnostic, if not an atheist, going purely by that source, and doesn't appear to have instantaneously converted to a religion upon finding Hume's argument is flawed. As this section is supposed to be about 'atheism and miracles', not 'David Hume and miracles', this means it seems to utterly fail to actually address the issue it's titled after.

See Also: Atheism and Evolution

Creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by God.^[41][42][43] A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.^[44][45] Creationist scientists assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.^[46] In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate.

The assertions that the laws of thermodynamics prevent an evolving universe is patently absurd; growth and development from an embryo to a fully-grown human being comes up against the same difficulties as apply to the increasing complexity of the universe, and no creationist would deny that they have grown since they were in the womb. Several defenders of evolution, such as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller, are devout Christians, who obviously don't count because they're not the right type.

See main article: Atheism and Mental and Physical Health

The is considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggest that theism is more conducive to mental and physical health than atheism.^[47][48] The prestigious Mayo Clinic reported the following on December 11, 2001:

In regards to data that relates to mental health and atheism, in December of 2003, the University of Warwick reported the following:

Duke University has established the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health.^[51] The Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health is based in the Center for Aging at Duke and gives opportunities for scholarly trans-disciplinary conversation and the development of collaborative research projects.^[52] In respect to the atheism and mental and physical health, the center offers many studies which suggest that theism is more beneficial than atheism.^[53]

Currently, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether atheism was a causal factor for Friedrich Nietzsche's insanity or whether it was caused strictly by disease.^{[54][55][56][57]} An article published on the Hong Kong Baptist University website offers the following regarding the cause of Friedrich Nietzsche's insanity:

This section again makes no valid point concerning the truth or falsity of atheism. Regardless of attacks on the statistical methods used, a causal relationship from atheism to unhappiness or other mental health problems does not show the existence of any god.

Mental problems leading to atheism would be more interesting, but the presented information (Even assuming that it is correct without question) does not make that claim. A proposition does not have to be comforting to be true.

See main article: Atheism and suicide

Although there are recent studies relating to atheism being a causal factor for suicide, an early proponent of atheism being a causal factor for suicide was the Reverend Dr. Robert S. MacArthur.^[59][60][61] In 1894, the NY Times stated the following in relation to atheism and suicide:

The same NY Times article quotes the Reverend Dr. MacArthur describing suicide in the following manner:

In 2004, the American Journal of Psychiatry reported the following:

The website Adherents.com reported the following in respect to atheism and suicide:

Australian online opinion writer and lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges, Bill Muehlenberg, in his essay The Unbearable Heaviness of Being (In a World Without God) states the following:

(…)of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. [1]

Correlation is not automatically indicative of causation. The high rates of suicide in former Soviet nations probably have a lot more to do with poverty and unstable socio-economic conditions than they do with plain old atheism. Incidentally, low suicide rates don’t necessarily mean good mental health. The fact that suicide is taught to be a mortal sin might go some way to explaining this. In religious communities, coroners are proportionately less likely to give a verdict of suicide because of the added grief and stigma this can bring to bereaved families. In any case, this entire section is simply a protracted Argument from adverse consequences. It has no logical merit.

Psychologist Sigmund Freud was a proponent of atheism who argued that theism was detrimental to mental health.^[67] Oxford Professor Alister McGrath, author of the book The Twilight of Atheism, stated the following regarding Freud:

The mere fact that Freud is now no longer an 'idol', even if it were true, does not discredit his earlier statements. The cited conference, without information about the size or makeup of its attendees, cannot be used to make sweeping comments about the truth status of Freud's view of religion. The cited report clearly makes no attempt to correct for the faith of the studied populations, nor does it actually examine double-blinded data concerning the effect of prayer on healing. Indeed studies which have tried this have invariably found no statistically significant difference between prayer and placebo.

Again this section makes no supported comment on the relation of faith to healing. It blusters, and appeals to pre-existing bias and appeal to popularity.

For more information please see: Atheism and deception

As alluded to earlier, prior to Charles Darwin publishing his evolutionist work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.^[69] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a deceitful ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory. ^[70] Also, in his autobiography Charles Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin deceitfully stated that he was an agnostic.^[71] Specifically, Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."^[72]

German scientist Ernst Haeckel was a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position and Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.^[73] Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of atheism, however, history shows he was a deceitful individual.^{[74][75][76] [77][78]} The March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."^[79]

Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".^[80]

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a NY Times article.^[81] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high profile NY Times article.^[82]

In addition, many of the ideas that Haeckel supported had a number of negative social effects.

So at some earlier point in his life Charles Darwin talked of a creator and later in life he talked about being materialist which has been equated with atheist? Most people's, who give life some thought, views change through out their life. They change their views as more evidence come to their attention. They don't write a 5,000 word blog piece full of hand picked quotes to support their own fears of their opinion being wrong.

Did you know Darwin started out studying to become a priest? He must have believed in God then. He then went out into the world, instead of sitting behind the 19th century equivalent of a computer, and experienced things that made him question his beliefs. He returned to England and thought about what he saw and over his life he went from being a C of E christian to an agnostic. This is because he thought about what he believed instead of trying to get people who believe the same thing as him to link to his 19th century equivalent of a blog.

Moving on to Ernst Haeckel. Note that again we see evolution support=atheism, which brings us to the false dichotomy of which is examined in Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support. The dichotomy aside note that it is scientist, not a creationists, that first suspect him of fraud and Stephen Gould who voiced the concern. It was Michael Behe who wrote it in an article for NY times as part of his overall campaign to undermine evolution. This is what Gould was upset about, that Behe is using an unfortunate incident to try undermine the theory in an inappropriate public forum rather than through research in peer-reviewed journals.

As mentioned previously, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.^[83][84] The continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists. In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.^[85] For example, Richard Dawkins, a prominent advocate of atheism and the evolutionary position, claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.^[86] However, the scientific literature certainly contains material which illustrates the deceitfulness of stating there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the evolutionary position which is a commonly cited aspect of Western world atheism. For example, in January 2000 scientist Simon Conway Morris stated the following:

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

The CP article fails to distinguish between atheism and evolutionary biology. They are not even the same field. Even if Evolutionary biologists, or even atheists in general, were deceitful, no traction is gained on the question of whether atheism is correct.

Dealing with the content, overwhelming evidence for "varying frequencies of alleles in a population under the influence of natural selective pressures" does exist. We have thousands of examples of this and hundreds of examples of speciation as a result of it. The lack of context on the first quote is telling; the article proceeded to deal with the percieved "oddity".

On the quote from Sarfati, then given the unchallenged evidence for change over time, then unless some novel process prevents large change, and another novel process produces the large differences between species, then given time the small changes become large (his "GTE"). Now apply Occams razor.

Again a complete refutation of terrestrial evolution would not impact on the question of the existence or otherwise of god. They are separate questions.

There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.^[89] The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.^[90] In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:

There is a reason evolutionary theory is losing public support: it is because a false dichotomy has been created, by both sides. The problem is that creationists, like Answers in Genesis, say you can't accept evolution because it goes against the the Bible. More vocal atheists like Dawkins say you can't study evolution without becoming an atheist. The result is that when polled about evolution, people feel that they are being asked to either accept or reject God. So they take the Discovery Institute's "creation-in-a-labcoat" ID and hide behind that to say they are neither an atheist or anti-science.

But to get back to the topic,

1. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, you could be an atheist who believes the world has always been exactly as it is now, unchanged since some infinite point in the past.
2. The truth is not a popularity contest, if we took a poll and found the majority of people believed there to be a final decimal place of pi (ie, pi is a rational number) and mathematicians just haven't found it yet, it would not make it true.

According to Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."^[92] Given that the evolutionary position is a often cited component of the ideology of atheism in the Western world, the gradual loss of public support of the evolutionary position is one of the many factors which are eroding the ideology of atheism. Oxford scholar Alister McGrath cites a number of additional factors in regards to the decline of atheism as an intellectual position.^{[93] [94]}

Given the many factors which are eroding atheism as a intellectual position McGrath states:

So a theologian is now an fair source on atheism? Pre-existing bias? Again the existence of god is not a democratic question. Loss of public support, which is patently false in Europe, may stroke the ego of some theists but does not change truth.

Currently there are a number of anti-atheism blogs. Some of the more notable anti-atheism blogs are the following: Atheism is Dead, Atheism Dissected, Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?, Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?, and Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists. The blog Atheism is Dead has been endorsed by Denyse O'Leary.^[96] Denyse O'Leary is a Toronto based journalist and author who covers events surrounding the intelligent design issue. Denyse O'Leary also co-authors the blog Uncommon Descent which is a blog that is also authored by William Dembski and others.

All these blogs are run by the same person, Mariano, and he cross-links them to raise his profile (inevitably failing as the Google search engine was written by smarter people than him). Denyse O'Leary, the person who endorses these wonderful blogs, does the same thing with her intelligent design blogs. These blogs appear to have few readers, and the only reason they have an article at Conservapedia was because Kenservative created them in return for the blogs linking to the Conservapedia Atheism article in what he termed "Operation Grassroots". It is pathetic at best.

For More Information Please See: Causes of Atheism

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

• Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence ^[97] (If there was a God, there wouldn't be so much suffering.)^[98]

• Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.^{[99][100][101][102]} The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."^[103]
• Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.^[104]

• Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts ^[105]

• State churches: Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. ^[106]

• Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.^[107] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.^[104][108] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.^[104] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.^[104]

• Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." ^[109]

• Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."^[109]

• Negative experiences with theists

• The advance of scientific knowledge: Science has in many ways become a new God. ^[110]

• Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to accept the reality of God's nonexistence (If there was a God, there wouldn't be so much suffering.)
• Moral depravity: See "Atheism and Immorality" above.
• Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God. This would point to Dr Vitz having been a closet theist rather than having actually become an atheist; though this may seem like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, "Atheist" is predefined as someone who accepts the nonexistence of God, rather than someone who has had this view pushed upon them.
• Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts. These people are idiots. Fairly and judiciously considering the facts is what leads most people to atheism. Also, this is the reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow weasel words ("some people"), after all, you can find "some people" that believe the earth is hollow.
• State churches: Rates of atheism are far higher in every country except the US which has freedom of religion enshrined in its laws. The US is often regarded as a special case due to societal influences. Many of these other states do indeed have established churches, but this is a correlation, not necessarily a causation. It is important to mention that governments in Europe do not sanction or prohibit churches. They control carefully the tax exemption to religious groups and directly support them with tax money. This means that the requirements for churches to receive the money are higher than in the United States, where the main legislative priority is the First Amendment, that requires that the burden of proof towards considering a group not a religion is on the state.
• Poor relationship with father: Anecdotal evidence suggests that many born-again Christians take to religion as a substitute for an absent or abusive father. So really, not much either way here.
• Division in religion: Since there has never been a test case of one monolithic religion without the death sentence for atheism, this has never been examined as more than a thought experiment. The quote by Francis Bacon must be understood in the context of his time, when a monolithic church dominated every community until Luther divided the people inside every community, making blind faith a lot harder.
• Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion." So basically when you have the evidence in front of you and leisure time to examine it, you're less likely to believe in God? I can get with that.
• Negative experiences with theists: Many atheists have had negative experiences with theists. Many theists have had negative experiences with theists of other kinds. This is because some theists (i.e. fundamentalists) tend to be intolerant.
• The advance of scientific knowledge: Science has provided us with a way of understanding the world which is more satisfying than Goddidit.

For More Information Please See: Atheism and the Problem of Evil

Those who advocate atheism commonly state that the existence of evil is a problem for theism which holds to a good and powerful God.^[111] Theodicy is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.^[112] In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.^[113] In recent times Christian apologists often cite Alvin Plantinga's free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. ^[114][115]The work of St. Augustine is also cited in regards to theodicy. ^[116] Dr. Ron Rhodes of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministry states regarding this issue regarding the existence of evil in relation to atheism:

A good segment of this section seems to be relying on the very existence of "Theodicy" to undermine the problem of evil, while actually providing no clear reason for why the very mention of people familiar with the problem is deemed sufficient to dismiss the idea entirely. Of course, they still provide a smattering of age-old justifications that fall ever so short of being sufficient. First, there is the idea that the problem of evil is explained in the story of Job. I assume that this explanation is something to the effect that human suffering is merely a test of one's faith. Of course, a just and loving God probably would not be so cruel as to arbitrarily torment his creations so that they can prove his love to him by taking the agony in stride. Yet, Job attests otherwise, lending credence to that particular argument against the problem of evil, while simultaneously conceding that God may not be as good and loving as modern day believers argue. The article briefly mentions free will as the cause of evil, which is inadequate, seeing as how free will contradicts an omniscient creator and the idea of being judged according to original sin, and that it fails to explain suffering caused outside of the realm of human activity. The ending quotation posits that one cannot know good from evil except from the perspective of an "infinite reference point", which is false unless you are willing to abandon any validity to the human perspective on good and evil, and thus forfeit all meaning to words whatsoever.

The birth of modern science occurred in Christianized Europe.^[118] Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,^[119] only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.^[119] Sir Francis Bacon, sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote in his essay entitled Of Atheism the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."^[120]

‎In False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it Stark writes in relation to atheism the following: