Proof is not Found in the Quinque Viae

A seldom-referenced (and often misinterpreted) explanation for God’s existence is alluded to in the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century medieval Italian theologian and Dominican friar of the Catholic Church Church.. Most modern Christians are completely unaware of the breadth of Aquinas’ work, or perhaps unaware of him at all; so, when rare opportunity comes up where one mentions Aquinas it is a gem in hopes of a fruitful discussion about religiosity’s misunderstanding of some of their more highly regarded theologians (and philosophers).

Aquinas’ work includes the quinque viae, mentioned in his book, “Summa Theologica.” Christians who are familiar with this will often read this as Aquinas proving the existence of God, when in fact Aquinas’ implications are merely what man’s interpretation of meaning and their associated belief of God is, not actual proof of the existence of God, himself. The quinque viae only postulates man’s presumptions of God based on phenomenon not yet explained at the time; not based on any divine revelations or religious experiences at all.

In fact, as a philosopher, Thomas is emphatically Aristotelian. When Thomas referred to Aristotle as the Philosopher, he was not merely adopting what many in Aristotle’s time viewed as creative imagination. He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, and his cosmology. Aquinas was greatly influenced by and used Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and his commentary on Metaphysics.

(Remember, in quinque viae, Aquinas was supposing man’s perception of these things in the 13^th century, 300 to 400 years before men like Johannes Kepler or Isaac Newton defined various laws of motion).

Looking at the “five ways to prove God exists” according to the Christian misinterpretation of Aquinas’ work, and as stated [in part] in Aquinas’ “quinque viae:”

First, motion: “Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion.” Since, as Thomas believed, “there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a first mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.”

In quite simpler terms, “This ball moved, and I don’t know how it moved because I didn’t move it, so God must have been the force behind the ball’s movement.”

Again, this was human interpretation at the time; not proof. Science has since defined everything from planetary motion to gravity to potential energy to thermodynamics. These are only a few that can explain the reason behind forcible motion of an object that wasn’t yet understood in the 1200’s.

(The ancient Greeks were sure the world was not flat, but that information was lost in the dark ages, and hence during Aquinas’ lifetime, most of the Christian world still believed the world was flat. This would understandably stunt their ability to comprehend the many forces that could impact an object’s motion).

Using only the first part of Newton’s First Law of Motion is an easy way to test this; “An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force” – Place a tennis ball on a surface. The tennis ball should not move on its own. However, the tennis ball has gravitational potential energy. If the surface is not flat gravity will cause the ball to move; not God. This is as simple an argument I can make to debunk Aquinas’ first postulate of man’s interpretation. But, on a larger scale, the same can be applied to planetary rotation and the gravitational forces of the sun.

Second, causation: “As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.”

This is actually more recently defined as transcendental idealism by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. This implies that human experience of things is similar only to the way they appear to us, rather than being an activity that creates a direct and obvious link for causation; such as evolution.

One important thing to consider is that even the Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth."

The Vatican’s concurrence with science, while irrelevant to the actual science itself, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of Aquinas’ second postulate of man’s interpretation.

Third: Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: “Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.”

I’ll keep this one short as it is pretty much resolved and debunked in the previous point, but evolutionary processes would certainly provide examples of things that exist but are unnecessary and are not the cause for other things to exist; wisdom teeth, men with nipples, or the remnants of a vestigial tail are just a few. One could even argue that Christianity exists but is unnecessary, as its assumed purpose of morality is merely coincidental to time, tradition, and geographical impregnation, and it is ambiguously tied to something that cannot in fact be proven to have ever existed. I'll admit that's a loose tangent, as Christianity is a belief system and not a physical property. But, if it were singular and absolute in purpose, there wouldn’t have been more than 2,500 other gods worshipped across the globe as far back as there is evidence for worship of. (Pay attention to the fact that I said “worship of,” not existence of).

Fourth: Gradation: “If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative which is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God”

Gradation happens around us every day, but was certainly not as understood in Aquinas’ time. At least not as prevalent as it is in the world around us today. Changes in our atmosphere, changes in the sun’s radiation, changes in the linguistics of our human language(s), even chameleons (and other animals) use a form of gradation as a defense against predators. These are not supernatural phenomenon but rather testable biological and physical properties. And, they are only a couple of many millions of examples.

Fifth: Ordered tendencies of nature: “A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.”

There is so much wrong with this postulate that it could require its own blog, but I will try to be brief. It’s far too ambiguous to be considered accurate proof of anything at all, outside of Aquinas’ thoughts on man's reason for belief. (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas' account of man’s view on God, it views the source of all knowledge coming from God as well. We absolutely know this is untrue. If you’ve taken even one class in your life, read one book, looked at one price tag, this is disproved).

This statement by Aquinas again berths Epicurus’ evaluation of God, which we know conflicts with the Christian assertion that he also gave us free will. He cannot be in complete control yet have no control at the same time. It’s one or the other. If we have free will, then it is entirely our own actions and those actions of the environment and cultures around us that combine to account for our circumstances and eventual ultimatum. If we don’t have free will, then “sin” is impossible. Which is it? That is the flawed perception of man in Aquinas’ fifth postulate.

Lastly, those things considered “natural laws” (divine laws) in the 13^th century have been irrefutably replaced by scientific laws by the year 2013.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a thinker, as shown by his deep affinity for Aristotle. However he was also a theologian and ranking member of the Catholic Church. He sought to understand existence and cause, but he never implied proof, only what his perceptions of man’s reasoning for belief were. That is important to note, because there is a very distinct difference between proof and belief (or hope). The quinque viae is not proof of God’s existence. It’s merely proof of man’s reasoning for his belief in that existence. We are 800 years advanced from the age of Thomas Aquinas. We understand the world much better now. (Mis)using Saint Thomas Aquinas’ assertions is no more effective than using the Bible to prove the existence of God.

Declining Religiosity and Increasing Morality

A fan of our Facebook page recently shared a great video with us about Atheism and morality. The video is about 18-minutes, but it is well worth the watch as it gives some good, hard data as it relates to the decline of religiosity and the increase in morality. While I have yet to corroborate all of the information, I’ve cherry-picked various bits of the information offered and have found it accurate within +/- 1% on various sources on the web.

Sam Harris has written much about morality as it pertains to Theism and Atheism. His books are undoubtedly among my recommended reads.

It is no surprise that the increase in Atheism brings about a more socially-compatible system of morality. I’ve made this point before; Atheists are skeptics at the least, and rational at the most. We’re not people who, by virtue of having no belief in a deity, are dropping goats off of buildings, running down people with our cars, or burning satanic symbolization onto our bodies (Satan is a Christian thing).

We just simply do not believe in a god, and by virtue of that, do not believe in the ritualistic brainwash that is ground into the minds and perceived morals of people who follow religions that subscribe to a god.  

So, what can we extrapolate from the information in the video and the case it makes that the decline of religiosity equivocates to the increase in a more well-behaved society in general?

There are many sociopolitical dynamics that may play a tangential role in this as well. As more people across the US and all over the world are seen as innately free and equal (rightfully so) by their governments, it would make sense that the shift from judgment (religion) to tolerance (reason) would take place. Religion is still tied to even the political dynamic as most governments are not absent representation of some religious motivation. As that representation loses its religiosity, the subjugation to religion declines. As that religious subjugation declines, and people are free to live without persecution, greater acceptance and morality grows.

Human tendency, where people have tasted freedom, is to wish to be self-governing for the most part. People want to be able to make their own choices and be free to live as generally civilized human beings without a forced obedience put on them, outside of the commonly accepted writs of a society governed by reasonable law and due process.

Religion is an institution of obedience. Catholicism (or Islam) would sit at a polar end of obedience, where other sects of Christianity may be less abrasive but still impose their virtues based upon a supernatural judgment of reward or castigation based on a specific morality associated with Christian obedience to doctrines associated with the Abrahamic god. You simply cannot be a Christian without believing in Heaven and Hell.

If you assert that you are a Christian who does not believe in these things, you’re actually more likely to be Agnostic with a fear you haven’t yet completely overcome. That will happen in time, and the beautiful freewill of Atheism will reduce whatever is left of Pascal's Wager within you.

As information becomes more available, and young minds are increasingly taught how to think instead of what to think, the growth of reason flourishes. I would believe it to be a safe assumption that higher misconduct by teenagers with higher religiosity is a natural act of rebellion against an imposed obedience. This is the psyche of a human being, particularly in a society where one is otherwise free to make choices that may be seen as unfavorable but aren’t going to get them stoned to death for stepping out of bounds from their religion. 

I’m one who likes to see data. I believe a lot can be found in numbers and statistics. When this is coupled with history and social behaviors, it’s hard to dismiss it as merely coincidence. Where Atheism exists at its core, which is the quest for falsifiable reason, critical thought and intelligence engaged at a higher level does bring about higher morality and conscious, social acceptance.

Reviewing Resources

I have been consuming myself with work on my book and neglected my blog this week. I will have a new article out in the next couple of days. Until then, I thought I would briefly highlight a few of the past articles for you to cherry-pick at anything that might seem of interest or help to you.

I’ve been humbled at the trust shown to me lately by lot of people (seeking insight) who, like myself, came from religion and fear how those around them will react when they are open about being Atheist. I am filling an entire chapter in my book with this, but two recent blogs may help. I believe it is more about being proud of the person you are and less about the topic of religion. I hope these two articles offer some useful perspective.

I am an Atheist

Be Secure in your Right no to Believe

There has been much stated about the “Religion of Peace,” also known as Islam. As Atheists, it is imperative we not shy away from calling out the dogma of all religions, particularly the ones that display the most duplicitous and self-righteous behaviors. Islam tops the list in violent religious dogma. Their attempt to convince everyone but themselves that they are peaceful is misguided. They cannot project an outward peace where an inward peace does not even exist. These recent articles are of an encounter with Islam, and a message to those exhausting our patience with their message of “peace.”

Convincing Your Own would be a Good Start

My Chilling Encounter with an Islamist

In the United States, we’re constantly embattled with Christians and their legislators as to their fallacious belief that America was founded upon Christianity. This article clears up only one way in which that is entirely untrue.

The Christian Misunderstanding of America’s Constitutional Foundation

Washing a child’s brain full of religious voodoo is arguably the most repugnant form of child abuse. These are a couple of articles written to the infestation of that abuse as well as the tragic results of it.

Dogma and Child Abuse

When you’re too Stupid to Breed

Duplicitous and hypocritical behavior are rampant among those who are most deeply affected by religious dogma. We have all been through the circular arguments, the inundations of scripture and the ridiculous idea that somehow one religion is right and the other is wrong. The other frustrating argument is the one where religion is used as an example of good, but then something else is ambiguously used as a scapegoat when its abhorrent virtues are shown. These are a few articles that may shed some perspective on those debates you engage in.

My God wouldn’t do That!

God, the Bad and the Ugly

The Argument of Religious Motivation versus Mental Illness

Lastly, I have begun to attempt to refute the ramblings of some Christian bloggers. One may call that futile, but I see it as an exercise in fortitude and determination for the cause of reason. The following three blogs were written as direct responses to one Christian blogger’s delusional dogma in particular, and were also embedded in the comment threads of her articles, where she allowed them.

Misleading Persecution

You’re not Required to be Gay

The chosen Separation from Reason

You can find several more articles on the side panel of the blog’s page, but these are the few I felt most valuable to highlight in light of recent discussions I’ve had or seen on the wall of our Facebook page or the walls of other pages dedicated to Atheist thought. I hope these prove as helpful. As is true with anyone’s writing, these are my perspectives. There are many resources out there, and I encourage seeking out as many as you can. Arming yourself with knowledge is the answer to defeating the fear and irrationality of religious dogma.

My Chilling Encounter with an Islamist

What began as a night of turning the brain off and spending time with friends became a lesson that furthered my disdain and reinforced my beliefs that the dogma of Islam is quite possibly the most frightening. At the least, it’s the most urgent and most convicted.

After a busy week of negotiating fatherhood, my career, drafting more of my book, my work on the blog’s Facebook page and the the many mundane aspects we all have in life, I decided to take a night off and head to a local pub with a few friends and catch the game.

It wasn’t long before a young man, likely in his mid-twenties, would sit next to me. His very first question struck me as odd and set the tone for what would become a rather intense engagement with Islamic dogma and the furthermost goal of its followers to the absolute persecution of non-believers, no matter the facade of what their belief may look like.

“Are you American?” - This seemed an odd question as I sat in a bowling alley pub in the heart of the upper-Midwestern United States, an unmistakably caucasian man whose ancestral roots are of Polish, German and Irish descent, with a Marine Corps tattoo on my arm. I couldn't have appeared more American if I had been the Statue of Liberty sitting next to him. “Yes, I am an American,” I said. I was obliged to ask at this point, “I gather that you’re not?” He would go on to explain that he’s Albanian.

I’m no expert on Albania, but I’m familiar enough with the turmoil in that part of the word over the past few decades, so I became inquisitive about the Albanian lifestyle, and this young man’s experiences in general.

He didn’t seem all that interested in talking much about Albania, and was even a bit capricious about what he found appealing about America, or why or how he even ended up here. The only thing he seemed to point out with any definition was that he was a Muslim. This of course turned my brain back online. Rather than read about it in the news or have online banter in rooms lenient to one point of view or another I had a real opportunity to engage in a face-to-face discussion with someone of the Islamic faith.

I saw it as a great opportunity to initiate discussion about a number of things, but especially the more recent events of foreign nationals self-radicalizing and how he felt that affected the perception of him as a Muslim in America today. (At this point, I had not yet discussed my position on religion, as I truly wanted to feed this discussion with empathy to enter the root of his Islamic values before dropping the proverbial shoe to obtain the other observation I would be curious about; his reaction and behavior toward a non-believer).

I listened as he first talked a bit about feeling sheepish in being outward about being a Muslim in America. That conversation left me more than perplexed because it seemed the entire purpose from the start was his desire to tell me he was a Muslim. I nurtured the conversation with him, even to the point of emphatically reinforcing the principles of Islam, to gain his trust. I talked a bit about how much clearer the Qur’an was as opposed to the Bible to understand, and that even with the conflicting messages of good and evil, the Qur’an gives the follower the guidance on how to interpret and employ the conflicting messages; something the Christian Bible does not do. I spoke of this in a tone that would seem to impress his faith; and he took the bait.

(Few know this, but the Qur’an instructs the followers of Islam that where conflicting passages are found, the most recent passages are the ones to be followed, as the ultimate mission of Islam is to eat the world of all other faiths in order that Islamic totalitarianism ultimately canvases the globe. Of course, adapted to the Qur’an and its faith, the more recent passages are the more radicalized passages, as very well explained in the video linked in the above paragraph).

He seemed impressed with my knowledge of Islam and asked me if I was also a follower of Allah or just a student of culture (which he initially claimed to be). I told him that I was merely a man who reads a lot and tries to understand the cultural landscape and associated human psyches around the world.

This is where the conversation would become more uncomfortable and the Islamic dogma and duplicity would finally be dug out of his ritualistic brainwash. I looked at him, drinking a beer, and asked, “I’m not at all trying to judge you, but I’m curious as to your consumption of alcohol as a Muslim. Do you feel that brings subjectivity to your faith, or am I misunderstanding the faith?” It was at this point he said that he wasn’t really a follower of organized Islam, but did believe in Allah. This is also when he asked me if I believed in god and if I was a Christian.

Not thirty seconds after I told him I was an Atheist, and after his astounded stare into my eyes, he just got up and walked away without saying another word.

I of course pursued him, because I was interested at why that offended him so much. (I already knew this answer, but really wanted it affirmed). He went over to the billiard tables so I walked over and set a dollar down on the table and offered to pay for a game against him. He again looked at me with disgust and said, simply, “I cannot talk to you.”

I wasn’t going away easy, as this now provided for so many opportunities to expose this “religion of peace and understanding” for what its current, younger and more self-radicalized generation truly guards its vision as; the presumed, ultimate destiny for us all.

He finally talked more, telling me that Allah would not accept me, nor would Allah accept him for being associated with me as a non-believer. I asked him how this made sense to him, feeling persecuted as a Muslim in the United States because of radical perceptions, while he, himself was behaving radically and persecuting someone who did not believe what he did. He again left it simple that Allah’s instructions for him are clear, that he not associate with non-believers.

I asked him where Allah instructs this (knowing the answer, of course). He said, “The Qur’an, you know this, you understand the Qur’an as you told me earlier.” I hedged my litigation of him even further at this point. “But, you just told me you’re not a true follower of Islam, that you just believe in Allah? How is it that possible if you are now using the Qur’an, the organized teachings of Allah and Islam, to judge me?”

His answer was the truth I was seeking the entire time. “Because I am ultimately responsible to Allah and his word, even if I do not practice all of the virtues of the Qur’an.” This mirrors the subjective following that Atheists recognize of all faiths. When I asked him if he would see me different if I were a Christian and not an Atheist, his response was one that was predictable, but still a bit eerie to hear; “Christians are Atheists to Allah.” (An argument that Atheists continually make to the monotheistic religions, that they are Atheists with the exception of their own god. It was nice to have this affirmed by a believer, even one of Islam, as most Christians sidestep that premise every time).

The entire purpose of my conversation with him was to understand and affirm the disease of dogma that infects the Islamic faith. I had no interest in selling him reason, science, or free-thinking purpose or critical thought processes in this discussion. It clearly would have been futile to try and dismantle his religion at this point anyway, with him so begrudged and disgusted at me for being offensive to he and his “god.”

I blogged recently about this misguided mission of Islam to convince the rest of the non-Muslim world that they were of peace. That blog was written and substantiated merely by my perceptions of their faith’s actions and the typical ambiguous and convoluted arguments with Islamist believers in various online forums. My convictions have now been virtually proven by an actual encounter with a young Islamist who is entirely convinced that the ultimate subjectivity of his beliefs default him to his faith’s virtues of persecution, contempt and antipathy toward the non-believer of Islam.

While it would be irresponsible for me to speculate that he is militant or otherwise aggressively dangerous in his beliefs (he made no allusions to that at all), it certainly was a sign that Islamic dogma is very much a sickness that parallels the Christian one, but perhaps one to be even more watchful of.

I certainly made sure I watched him leave, before me. Call me paranoid, but I want this disturbed and duplicitous young man nowhere near the sanctuary I call my house of reason. It was an enlightening conversation, for sure.

I am an Atheist

I am an Atheist. I am your neighbor, the one who helps you when your car is stuck in the snow, and who watches over your house when you’re on vacation. I am your friend, the one who is ready with a witty joke when you’re in need of a laugh, or an open ear and a cold beer when you are confronting adversity. I’m the one you go golfing with, camping with, and watch the game with.

I am your son, the one who has always tried to make you proud. I am the one in all of the family photos. I am your brother, your nephew and your cousin. I am the one who is always smiling and wanting to make you laugh. And, I am an Atheist.

I am an Atheist who is a professional in his career, and who has taken every opportunity to succeed. I am your boss, your coworker and also your employee. I have learned more from you than you have learned from me. I have not felt as a leech on society or felt entitled to anything but human dignity.

I am a Veteran. A man grateful for his freedom and humbled at the opportunity he had to serve his country as just one of a long line of family members to do so. A man who felt indebted to those who served for our rights and freedoms before him, and felt it only right to do the same. I am a proud patriot, and I am an Atheist.

I am an Atheist, and I am a father. A father who lives in humility at what he sees in the eyes of his child. A father who marvels at their respect for everyone and everything around them. A father who teaches his child how to think, not what to think. A father who devotes his time and attention to a young child with a thirst for life. A father who laughs, cries, teaches, heals, mentors, talks with and listens to his child. I am a father who has never raised his voice or lifted a hand at his child. A father who’s never had to use fear to motivate his child.

I am a part of the community, engaged in community activities, their environmental conscience, and respect for those who keep our community safe. I am a man who tries to be as philanthropic as possible with both his time and his resources to causes benefiting Cancer, MS, Cardiovascular Disease, Parkinson’s, Child Abuse, Autism, Women’s Rights, HIV, Big Brother & Big Sister Programs, Scouting, Disabled Veterans, Animal Welfare, and programs to assist the Homeless. I sponsor a young girl in Bangladesh, supporting programs to improve her education and basic quality of life. A girl from another culture and of another lifestyle. A girl, 8,000 miles away, who I will never meet. And, I am an Atheist.

I am an Atheist. I don’t worship the devil, and I’m not a Neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist. I don’t belong to a Cult and I’m not engaged in breaking the laws of society. I am not perfect, but I learn from my mistakes. I don’t judge my neighbor based on their gender, their race, or their sexual preference. I see my neighbors as people who are entitled to the same innate rights as I am as dignified and civilized human beings. They are Americans, Chinese, Indians, Sikhs, Mexicans, Poles, Italians, and Egyptians; to name just a few. We all share the same oxygen, and are wetted by the same rain.

I was a Catholic for many years of my life. But now I am an Atheist.

I am an Atheist. I am a man of moral conscience and social compatibility. I am a man of strength who has a right to profess and be proud of what he stands for without it being misunderstood, or labeled as the manifestation of an evil affliction or perdition. I am not a threat to you. I simply try to be a caretaker of a reasonable humanity.

My mind and my compassion work in a tandem motion of what is right and reasonable. I seek the truth with my own eyes and systemically discount the things that seem capricious, illogical, irrational, oppressive, inhumane, or vacant. I view the world around me as a limitless opportunity to grow and to learn; not a world where I am bounded by the restrictions or indoctrinations laid down by those before me. I fight to understand, to comprehend, to keep my mind free and open, and to effect the world around me with a passion for reason and knowledge.

I am an Atheist.

Convincing Your Own would be a Good Start

I’m beyond exhausted of hearing pleas of profession to the (generally) civilized world from those of the Islamic faith that their religion is one of peace.

If you’re a follower of Islam sitting in a country where you have the freedom to practice and speak your religion, along with millions of others infected with your (or their own) form of religious dogma without the fear of being murdered for it, it’s pretty easy to sit back behind your computer and attack non-believers (literal non-believers, or even those who believe in an alternate faith) of being Islamaphobic.

(By the way, every medium I use to spell that word tries to correct it, suggesting it’s not even a valid word. I can’t find “Islamaphobia” in one single resource of actual fears, including this one which seems pretty comprehensive. The word you are looking for is “Theophobia,” and the only ones who suffer from it are yourselves; precisely why your religion perpetuates the most intolerant behavior and violence against not only themselves, but also the rest of the non-Islamic world).

If you (Islamic-practicing Muslims) want to make a real impact for the virtue of peace in your religion, get out of your comfy chair of freedom and journey to Bangladesh, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Somalia, or any number of countries rampant with Muslims following radicalized beliefs in Islam and start convincing them that they are interpreting the Hadiths wrong. Stop sharing them with me. I’ve read them and they are just as conflicting and in contradiction with each other as the teachings of the Christian Bible.

End the sectarian violence within your own faith. That might be a good start. Stop killing each other in your self-important argument over which Islamic Prophet is the true Prophet. How can you possibly profess an outward peace when you cannot even demonstrate an inward peace among those who follow the same book? You cannot agree with each other, yet you want others to agree with you?

That seems hyper-hypocritical.

I’m just as sick of seeing peaceful passages of the Qur’an thrown around as I am of the Biblical ones. You cannot, reasonably and with logical conscience, use your religion to pontificate your tolerant virtues while at the same time the acts proclaiming attribution to the same religion are used to justify your righteous virtues, and absolve you from the abhorrently inhumane and oppressive virtues.

That’s an all-inclusive insanity pass to Stupidland. (There, now I’ve made up a word, also).

When you impress upon a rationally-thinking human being to see that your religion is about peace as we see stories of people being murdered, maimed, beheaded, tortured, raped and mutilated in the name of that religion, you sound, well, they simply haven’t come up with a word to describe that level of elevated ignorance yet.

We (those not trapped in mystic and paranoid delusions) will be convinced your faith is peaceful, without your having to tell us so, when the actions speak for themselves. When we see the peace in your religion, we’ll give you that pat on the back you want.

Until then, it is you who have work to do in your projections; not us in our perceptions.

If you are about peace, then demonstrate that. If you want peace, then effect that. If those within your faith are behaving under a misinterpretation of your faith, then tell them that. Teach them, not us. Your efforts are wasted and misguided until you first accomplish that.

Be Secure in your Right Not to Believe

For most non-believers, the real “A” words are not Atheism or Agnosticism, but rather apprehension, antagonism, and abjection.

The apprehension to “out” one’s self as a non-believer is what I imagine any number of persecuted social groups have had to experience in the past as they aver their right to social equality as innately and humanely afforded.

As it pertains to non-belief of religion, the apprehension is mostly fear that family, friends and even co-workers will instantly reduce the value of your character to somewhere between “Satan” and Stalin.

What is most important to remember is that your character belongs to you, and is a cumulative measure of your experiences in life, the causes you’ve stood for, the contributions you’ve made, the knowledge you’ve nurtured and shared, and generally how well you’ve behaved as a socially-compatible human being.

There’s an often-referred to quote that I like to reference, and there are conflicting reports of where it originated, but it says so much with so few, but obvious words:

                “If someone has a problem with you, remember that it is their problem, not yours.”

The social stigma with non-believers is most notable in the United States and places in the Middle East where there remains a significant core group of religiously faithful who believe that one is without a moral purpose unless they profess devotion to a singular deity that they forfeit their conscience (minds) to; more specifically, the deity worshipped by the majority in that geographical region. That is where the religious antagonism and abject presumptions toward non-believers furthers the apprehension of logical thinkers to feel proud or even just comfortable professing their non-belief publicly. To this day, doing so can even get you killed in some countries.

That must change.

Free yourself from that fear, and be proud to be a person who does in fact have a belief; a belief in themselves and their adept abilities to seek reason and rationality. Many cannot freely make that assertion. Those of us who can, need to do so on their behalf. Furthermore, we need to free ourselves from the chains of the dogmatically self-righteous who accuse non-believers of having no self-worth.

This study from 2007 shows that the United States is nearly 80% Christian. (However, since that time countless books written by people like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, dissecting religious virtue, has lowered that number drastically). Still, we are a largely Christian nation, which furthers the social stigma and persecution of non-believers by the righteously faithful. This is an explanation, and surely shouldn’t be used as an excuse.

Not all religiously faithful cast stones. However, the majority of Christians in America follow a political affiliation that does seek to use that religious affiliation as a platform for how they attempt to legislate their Christian interpretation of morals on the rest of society. Morals based from an ideology that, while certainly has some good examples, also has some abhorrently hateful examples of how to treat people who think or live differently than them.

The absence of a religious faith does not leave one void of hope or of moral aptitude. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The ability to seek reasonable explanation stimulates hope and moral aptitude.

Morals are not absolute or objective, because they are assumed principles based upon varying beliefs, and even non-belief. Morals are behaviors or attitudes that have certainly changed over time and will continue to. We see this with slavery, sexism and homosexuality. Morals derive from what both individuals and collective societies want to label actions as.

Society can either label these actions as being moral or immoral or as good and evil. Different societies, even in the year 2013, have different laws and different sanctions for actions. If you take any moral social issue such as the death penalty, abortion, and homosexuality even people who have a religion fall on both sides of a given moral issue.

Those of us who are non-believers are not vile, unpleasant or socially-dangerous people. At least not any more than the general population. There is no evidence to suggest that non-belief results in more violent crime or socially-deviant behavior. In fact, being the greater minority in society, it would appear, even relatively-speaking, that repugnant behavior is quite a bit more prevalent among those who declare a faith.

I have yet to hear a story of a non-believer murdering another non-believer because of their particular form of non-belief. The title of Atheist or Agnostic does not make us dangerous individuals, nor does it make us cynical. It makes us skeptics.

Skepticism is merely a more provisional approach to what others assert to be the truth. Non-believers apply reason to ideas, removing the ambiguity and immeasurable variable of “faith.” Skepticism is a method, not a position. When we say we are "skeptical," we’re declaring the need to see compelling evidence before we believe. 

By most tangible examples, this would seem a reasonable approach to everyone. If I told you I found a seed that grew a money tree and you’d never have to work again, you’d surely want to see it before quitting your job instead of just taking my word for it.

That may seem a bit tangential to religion, but it’s similar in the way non-believers apply skepticism.

Billions of people around the world have good, ethical, meaningful lives that are full of purpose without the belief in a god. Atheists are people who, in most cases, take responsibility for their own actions both good and bad based upon a system of personal accountability as opposed to the more communal accountability whereby many religions claim a god intended them to carry out an action, or say they did something because it was what a god wanted them to do, good or bad.

Non-believers don’t use religion as a breakfast table to serve up philanthropy or charitable cause toward our fellow human beings for the reason that we believe doing so is a prerequisite for a ticket to an ambiguous second life. We act compassionately towards those oppressed because it is what is right to do.

We live in the here and now, and we live proud.

Atheism is not by any definition a system of belief or standard set of imposed values. Atheism is a rejection of belief in a deity, only. It says nothing at all about the beliefs a person does hold or his/her individual ethics, morals, or values.

If you are a Christian, then you do not believe in any other god (and there are literally thousands). You do not fear any other god because you believe they do not exist. As a Christian, you hold a belief in one God; however, you are an atheist with respect to all other gods. (In the 1st and 2nd centuries, Christians who did not worship the Emperor as God were called atheists by the Romans.)

Non-believers reject all the gods, just like Christians. But we will go one more, rejecting the Christian god as well. That is all atheism is. And this same systematic way of thinking can apply to any of the other monotheistic religions who would otherwise curse Christianity just the same as they would curse Atheists.

That duplicity is both the continuity and the common denominator between all religions that only non-believers seem to be able to objectively process and conclude.

As alluded to throughout this blog, it is the attack on one’s character that keeps most non-believers behind the curtains. Intellectual, philanthropic, socially-productive people with much to say and offer, but an overriding fear of being lambasted by those closest to us, and by a nation that is largely intolerant of non-Christians (particularly if you are an Atheist or a Muslim in America).

When we engage in discussions with believers, and a point is reached where believers can no longer substantiate a point that we clearly want to understand (yes, we want to understand it; we seek to understand, that’s what we do), believers often resort to ad hominem, which is to say that they begin to attack a person’s character rather than use valid logic or forming a sound argument in defense of their point.

Being a non-believer is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the fastest growing group of people in the world, and it’s a statement of both your unbiased compassion for humanity and your ability to think systematically. These are not things you should be afraid to speak of.

Non-believers, be proud of yourself, and be proud of being reasonable. Your way of thinking leaves you more cultivated and certainly more civilized than most. Exercise your confidence, and your personal, free conscience.