[Quick edit: my blog could make it seem I recently became an atheist.  Really it's been somewhere between 7 and 20 years.  The lower number reflects how long I've said "I'm an atheist."  The higher number reflects how long I've said, "by nearly every definition I'm an atheist, so I'm probably an atheist." 

I think the hedging language tends to be a normal part of the development of an overt atheist from a covert atheist.]

Atheism to me is more of a beginning than an end. Certainly it can mark the end of a period of struggle.   But I have experienced atheism far more positively than negatively. Pretending to believe Christian doctrine was like wearing a 200 pound backpack. Yeah, I was able to do it for a long time. But it caused more problems (bad back) than it helped (exercised legs).


But the doctrine itself wasn’t really the source of the 200 pounds. The act of pretending was the source of the weight. The moment I could finally say, “I really like theology, but most of it is false and counterproductive”, I was entering a whole new glorious experience.


Consider the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. (Not the Immaculate Conception, which is entirely different.) If we’re talking about a literal human female being inseminated by a spirit… well, in my opinion that’s dumb as hell.


But taken as almost anything else, it’s a fascinating mental experiment. Imagine the idea divorced from religion or dogma. Imagine it as a literary construct. It could be deconstructed in any number of ways, even the demonization of males in an otherwise phallocentric world.


So of course I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth. But damn, that’s some interesting shit.  (Sure, also interesting all the times it was used before the biblical writers borrowed it.)


When I finally admit to something, I no longer have to expend precious mental energy fabricating excuses. I don’t have to defend something. I don’t have to conceal something. I can say what I think.

Here’s an example. It’s an opinion of mine:

Religion is mostly harmful. A tiny fraction of it is helpful.


If you said, “Jim, quantify that”, I’d say, “eh, the helpful part is less than 2% in my opinion. The damaging part is around 98%.”

I'm not saying I'm right.  In fact, I think I'm giving religion the benefit of the doubt by granting it a number as high as 2%.  It might be more around .5%    The point is, my identity as "an atheist" enables me to just tell you how it looks to me.

Ah, the freedom I experience now that I’m an atheist. I’m not telling you what is the case. I’m not suggesting you adopt my estimates. I’m free to simply tell you what I think.   For years and years I was unable to simply tell a person what I think.


In recent years, several thinkers/philosophers have postulated that the entire universe might be a simulation. I could see that. I can admit that. It might be.  On some days I'd almost bet it is a simulation.  What's it simulating?  I don't know.


And it might not be a simulation.  Whoop-ti-do.  Recognizing the possibility doesn’t undo the fact that I’m an atheist.

But suppose it is a simulation! Suppose the programmer(s) of the simulation have so much power over us that they can be justifiably regarded as gods or a singular God! Won’t that prove monotheism was right all along?


No. It comes closer to proving Buddhism, and doesn’t even really do that.


Suppose this divine programmer says, “Jim, I created the simulation! Worship me now!” Will that scare me? Probably. Will I worship him at that point? Who the hell knows? I might, if he scares the crap out of me.   Just being honest.


Ah, but if the programmer allows me to engage him in conversation? If he answers all my questions, will it prove I should have been a believer in him all along?


Not really.  It looks like atheism was the intellectually honest response throughout all the ages. 


Someone might say, “who ever said honest responses were the goal?” Yes, I think that’s an excellent point. Maybe lies and mayhem are the nearest thing to virtue.

Yes, maybe.  And maybe not.

If programmers created the universe and are enjoying the suffering on earth right now, maybe they get the most thrills from observing people who victimize others.


If that’s the case, I’m not pleasing them that often.  Should I have believed in them all along?  Doesn't look like.  It still appears that there's zero evidence of God and overwhelmingly conclusive evidence against God.


And we’re back to the delightful liberty of an atheist worldview. I don’t have to have answers. I don’t have to have defenses. Moral obligation is a hypothesis. I don’t have to oppose it or agree with it. I can simply share my thoughts with others – or not.


“God-given rights” are hypothetical and false. Unless the word God is defined to mean human institutions, in which case such rights are thinly-veiled legal remedies (or hybrids thereof) borrowed from the English common law of contracts.


I don’t know. And I don’t have to know. Ha ha ha! Atheism – what a relief.

Views: 175


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jim the Atheist on March 25, 2019 at 10:11pm
Fantastic! I will look for MacAllan 12 when I'm in town. The 18 and upward are a little out of my budget at the moment. Thanks for the tip!
Comment by Loren Miller on March 25, 2019 at 9:54pm

Then I prescribe The MacAllan, 12 years old at least and preferably 18 or 25. Its smooth, rich Speyside character may not be as rough and contradictory as Johnny Walker Black, but it may be more to your liking.

Comment by Jim the Atheist on March 25, 2019 at 8:46pm
I can understand that. He is very impressive. His ability to deliver cogent competent information is masterful. And on the other topic if I get within 10' of Johnnie Walker I get heartburn.
Comment by Loren Miller on March 25, 2019 at 6:50pm

Jim, the one sorrow (well, not the ONLY one) that I have in this life is that I never had a chance to meet the man, have a talk and a drink with him ... and maybe try to talk him into trying a good Islay single-malt and get him away from that god-awful Johnny Walker Black! [chortle!]

Comment by Jim the Atheist on March 25, 2019 at 6:35pm
Having watched portions of the videos that Loren Miller generously provided, I believe I can say that Hitchens probably only irked me (and even the word irk is too strong) because from time to time he departed from a caricature I have held for my entire life as it pertains to the polite and well reasoned English gentleman. I have been holding him to un unfairly super-human behavioral standard (though to again praise him, he practically achieves this unreal standard). A personal hero Richard Dawkins is even more unswervable in his diplomacy.
Comment by Joan Denoo on March 25, 2019 at 6:28pm

I watched the video, "Outrageously funny" after I wrote that he softened. He did not soften, however, I do recall the description of sadness about leaving the party and it goes on without him as he drew nearer to death. His words helped me while I thought of my own cancer. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 25, 2019 at 6:22pm

I was wrong, Hitch was as cutting with a bald head as he was with his full locks. 

Comment by Loren Miller on March 25, 2019 at 6:19pm

Joan, I think Hitchens' attitude and demeanor would vary with the topic and the attitude of his opponent, if there was one.  In addition to the adjectives I used in describing him in my last post, I would add "mocking" as well, mocking with a heavy dose of irony.  This is especially evident in a debate he had with Frank Turek many years ago.

Side note: Frank Turek being the obtuse, atheism-misrepresenting apologist that he is, he deserved all the Hitch-slapping he got, and probably a lot more!

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 25, 2019 at 6:07pm

As to the harshness of Hitch, he was like a blowtorch cutting through steel and hitting the target, sometimes obliquely. Loren had to interpret him for me from time to time. After his diagnosis, he softened, he was more empathic and seemed to challenge in a softer voice. At least, that was my impression. Loren will possibly disagree.

Comment by Jim the Atheist on March 25, 2019 at 6:05pm
Hi Joan. You wrote, "God-given rights" represent a basic lie and misrepresentation of the grantee of the right.

I think you meant grantor, rather than grantee. If so I believe understand your argument. Your seed or egg analogy is an argument that humans can flourish and grow to healthy adulthood if they receive what they need.
(And rights, however secured or from whomever received, provide the analog to soil or fertilization, etc., if I understand your comparison.)

Yes, that may be accurate. But saying a seed has a right to soil, sunlight and water, seems a very inaccurate (as well as cumbersome if not pointless) anthropomorphism.

If you care about children (and I'm sure you do), you may choose to sacrifice your own needs to ensure that children have enough food or healthcare. I would call that drive humanitarian. If that drive becomes systematic I believe the correct term would then be humanitarianism.

But if you then stopped providing for these basic needs, it is quite a stretch to assert that their 'rights' have been violated, as though you were merely fulfilling an obligation to them, and now your inaction equals you victimizing them.

I may be failing to understand.



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service