A Concise Guide to Atheist Thought

By Joe Blinka
Topics
Introduction Some Perspective (on Religion) The Atheism in All Proving a Negative A Gods Probability Why I Am an Atheist

This is to be freely distributed with acknowledgement to the author.

Introduction
The purpose of this book is not to attack, confront, bash, insult, or say anything negative about religion. The pros and cons of religion are irrelevant to this book. The purpose of this book is to merely offer an explanation of various dimensions of atheist thought. In a nutshell, this book addresses why atheists think the way they think. I do not believe prominent atheists make a very good case for atheism by bashing or confronting religion. While atheism is, in a sense against every theistic religion, it does not need to be presented in the you are wrong, therefore I am right format I have seen in both religious and atheistic rhetoric. The goal of this book is not to change the minds of theists, but to offer an explanation of atheism without confrontation and offense to theistic belief. I cannot guarantee that this book will not offend, but it is in my best interest to make sure that it does not. Things that seem a matter of opinion stated as fact will be said in this book. I will say here that the arguments are explanations of what atheists believe rather than an attempt to prove atheism right. So everything is presented merely how an atheist views it, not as an assertion of how things are in reality. I avoided putting atheists view this as within each

argument out of avoidance of generalization. While I wish to explain atheism in this book, I also do not wish to pigeonhole atheists.

Some Perspective (on Religion)

It is generally accepted that a god cannot be proved or disproved, but I have come across people taking this a step further and believing that their god is somehow more likely to exist than any other. I would hit this frustrating stop in debates where I would be told that just because other gods could not be proved or disproved, it does not give them the same chance of existing as their god. But for all practical purposes it does if one believes that gods are supernatural concepts outside of the realm of scientific or logical proof or disproof. The reason their probability of existing is the same even though it may not seem that way is because without any objective means of measuring the possibility of different options, it must be assumed that they all have the same probability until evidence is found to change the theorized probability. It is natural for humans to believe what they are raised around, and it is more difficult for them to understand environments that are not their own. While we may know a few details, imagination is no substitute for actually knowing what something is like. The same goes for understanding other peoples religions. That makes it difficult for one raised in a particular religion to comprehend the equal possibility of all other gods existing because many have no experience being surrounded by people as far as the

eye can see believing something entirely alien to their beliefs. If one were to logically assess the other believes, one would have to ask questions like if their beliefs are less logically viable than mine, then why do so many people believe them? While that question contains the ad populum logical fallacy, it is nonetheless one that should be asked to understand anothers beliefs. Picture one day waking up in an ancient Egyptian city thousands of years ago. Now lets assume you are Christian. Their beliefs are going to be very different from yours. An idea of there being one god called God or Yahweh will make them scratch their heads. That is not part of their beliefs, and they do not know of anything like that. An evil being that is an enemy of the supreme being(s) named Satan, Lucifer, or the Devil? What? You mean Aapep? These ideas have been around them for their entire lives. Without science, the ideas are all they have to explain the world. Their gods are part of reality for them, and they are merely a story for you because that is in all likelihood how they were presented to you when you learned about them. It is doubtful the source you got them from once decided to point out the people believed in their gods every bit as much as you believe in yours. It would be somewhat irrelevant to explaining their beliefs point that out, but it is an important detail.

Would you be a Christian if you were born and raised in ancient Egypt before Christianity existed? Most likely you would never have conceived of that idea. I hope that this can help you realize that what you deem reasonable is largely based on your environment. Keep that in mind next time you read an Egyptian myth or a Bible story.

The Atheism in All

While many may not realize it, even those who believe in a god already utilize aspects of atheist thought. Though this does not respectively make them atheists, as some may claim. The only difference between utilizing aspects of atheist thought and being an atheist is the choice of not applying it to every god, and most importantly, the god or pantheon one was raised to believe in. People of almost all religions, be it Christian, Hindu, or Muslim in fact do not consider the possibility of existence of many gods the same way an atheist does not consider theirs. Why is Egyptian mythology often regarded as mythology? The term myth has a connotation of a story, or a widespread misconception. It ignores the fact that the Egyptians had a sincere belief in their gods and were not instead wrapped up in a delusion. But this regarding it as a myth, or a widespread misconception is indeed a piece of atheist thought that runs in all who do not believe in the Egyptian gods. Why does one dismiss the Egyptian gods? I shall offer an explanation: One, one does not feel they have seen any explicit evidence that they exist. That is the way many atheists feel about every single god. It is not enough for an atheist to prove a negative in order to not believe in a god.

Proving a Negative
In debates about religion I've read online, and in religious rhetoric, I have frequently seen the argument that one cannot disprove a god. That is true. However, this "cannot prove, cannot disprove" principle applies to many other things, such as other gods. Obviously the average Christian does not believe in Indra, so the idea of disproving Indra leaves them in the same place that an atheist is left at with disproving God. A Christian does not need to completely disprove Indra to not believe in him, same as the position of most atheists regarding God. In other words, proving a negative is only anything but irrelevant in measuring the logic in believing in a conclusion if one feels they have something to gain by believing the conclusion. To give an example: the notion that there are glass mushrooms revolving around Sirius B is impossible to disprove without actually going to Sirius B. However, most people would not consider, on the grounds that they cannot disprove it, that those mushrooms are there. The reason why is that there is no emotional benefit for most people in believing that glass mushrooms revolve around Sirius B.

In essence, proving a negative is considered silly unless one wants to believe the positive.

A Gods Probability
While I do not find this topic inherently offensive, I can see the more zealous religious people feeling this is an affront to their beliefs. But this is not meant to insult or berate any religion. This is merely a view of the probability of a god from the perspective of atheistic logic. I have put the possibility of existence of any specific god or pantheon at one in infinity divided by two. This list will explain why. 1. One cannot prove or disprove a specific god or pantheon any more than they can prove or disprove any other. 2. One can come up with an infinite amount of different concepts for gods or pantheons that are impossible to prove or disprove. 3. In an entirely naturalist world, there would be no supernatural, meaning there would be no gods. Assuming no means exist to prove an entirely naturalist or supernatural world, the assumption of possibility shall be divided up fifty-fifty. 4. In the naturalist fifty percent, there are no gods. In the supernatural fifty percent, there is the split probability of the infinite amount of gods and pantheons both conceived and unconceived.

5. Therefore, assuming a split in probability with no existing factor to eliminate any of the conclusions, the chance of any specific god or pantheon existing is one in infinity divided by two. I have placed a diagram of this argument below for good measure. Some conclusions that exist in

Why I Am an Atheist
This last section is merely a personal account of my growth into atheism. I felt that a book explaining an atheists reasoning would not be complete without giving a story of someone becoming an atheist and explaining why. In my experience of meeting people who follow different religions, I tended to get the same impression from them when they found out I am an atheist. It tended to be one of bewilderment, and rightfully so. Atheists are a minority in the world, and, as such, I feel I need to supply an explanation of my view of the ideology, without attacking other people's religions. I started becoming an atheist when I was around thirteen years old. I was raised Catholic, and was not really aware of the sheer volume of other beliefs that existed in the world, but that would change when I started learning about the history of the Catholic Church. It was particularly when we were learning about the conversion of Pagans that I started questioning whether the way I was raised was the "correct" way. I thought about how the Pagans must have felt, believing something completely different from what I did, and being told it was wrong. It caused me to think about why I believed what I believed, because obviously the Pagans must have believed that what

they believed was right just as much as I believed that what I believed was right. I started questioning the existence of a god. It caused social trouble for me; I had heard from my mother that students' parents told them not to talk to me because of my questioning. I just wanted to know if there were a logical reason that people stuck to what they were raised to believe. I was always asking for proof, which got me kicked out of religion class frequently, but that did not discourage my questioning. The more I asked people for proof of their beliefs, the more I came to believe that people believed what they were raised to believe only by some amount of accepting without questioning. This eventually made me angry, and I felt as if I had broken free from a mental prison that everyone around me was still trapped in, and had to save everyone, much the same way the missionaries felt they had to save the Pagans. It was at that point, feeling enlightened much in the way that the priests in my school that I questioned felt, that I began to question my questioning. By the time I was fourteen, my questioning had died down, but I started identifying myself as an agnostic. I went to a public school for my first year of high school, and had friends who were atheists. We debated on occasion about whether or not there were a god. I was on the side supporting a god, since I was not ready to

dismiss a god altogether, but still not ready to accept one. My complete transformation into an atheist came the following year. I went to a Seventh Day Adventist school in Hong Kong, where I took a class called "World Views and Religions." Learning about other religions in depth created much more confusion for me. My agnosticism was only about the Christian god, but there were so many other gods that people believed in and still believe in, and I was positive that they believed/believe in them just as much as any Christian believed/believes in their god! I had to think about it. I could not stop. I had to take into account the possibility of the existence of every other god. To us they were presented as just stories, but I could not help but look to the other side, where maybe somewhere someone believing in a different god or gods was being taught about the beliefs I did not question before, and only thinking of them as simple myths and not things that should be regarded with the possibility of existence. An explosion of questioning came out of me at every Bible study. I could not help it. People were being told to simply accept these ideas being presented to them at face value without questioning them. I just could not stand by without even presenting the possibility that a different god could exist. I one time said, "we can't prove or disprove God. We can't prove or disprove any other god. There could be millions of gods and we wouldn't

know!" I was only answered by silence. That was when I began to think that no religion could answer my questions. The purpose of humans in the universe was left unanswered for me, and it was bringing me down. That was until we learned about Buddhism. I never knew much about the religion, but it struck me as odd hearing that Buddha was an atheist. I had always believed that Buddhists worshipped Buddha, but instead, they seek enlightenment. It immediately drew my interest that there was a religion that was about seeking enlightenment rather than presenting an idea of what it was, an idea that I could question. The Four Noble Truths hit me with a powerful message about my happiness and the existence of a god: The existence of a god is irrelevant to it. It is a question unanswerable by logic and reason, and as such, why should I base my happiness on it? Happiness is not logical. Happiness is an emotion. When I separated my questions of the existence of a deity from my view of my purpose in the world, it was far more liberating than questioning my formerly Catholic viewpoint. I was still agnostic, though. The question of a god's existence still remained, though separate from how I would live a happy life and be a good person. What finally kicked me over the edge from agnostic to atheist was being told to be "more open-minded" after a Bible study. "Irony" was my

only thought. The one who was telling people what they believed as if it were a fact, and not a leap of faith, was telling me to be more open-minded for reminding people that what they believed was belief and not fact, and that they should not mindlessly accept it. I understood when convincing someone of something, the less they think about it, the easier it is, but I just could not understand how anyone would find it rewarding to convince someone who does not question. It struck me as incongruous, and almost unethical, to enjoy getting someone who does not question to believe something. Now here is my logical view of atheism. I do not dismiss the possibility of (a) god/gods existing, but I am not agnostic. Thinking someone has to dismiss the possibility to be an atheist is like thinking there is no difference between considering something despite being in face of uncertainty, and not considering something for being in face of uncertainty. I am an atheist because I believe in the possibility of existence of any god anyone has ever believed in, and any I can make up, but I do not see any logical reason why I should declare a belief for any specific god or set of gods and reject all others.

In case you were wondering what the Four Noble Truths were, here is an interpretation of them from my memory of the World Views and Religions class: 1. Ordinary life brings about suffering 2. The origin of suffering is attachment (or human desires) 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable 4. There is an eightfold path to the cessation of suffering I do not wish to convert you to Buddhism, but I hope that these can change your life the way they changed mine.

This book was distributed December 5, 2011.