This is the perhaps the best single pitch against religious belief that I’ve ever seen, and I plan on capturing it in argument form at some point, along with related gems from other greats over time.

People who care about these things need to have these reasons available, and to be able to produce them and expand on them when asked. Otherwise the objection to religion appears to be purely anger-driven and confrontational without purpose.

Secular people: please consider learning these arguments. Religious people: please consider understanding these arguments, and preparing your best reasons for opposing them so that we may move the conversation forward.

“I think one of the things we’ve seen happen, and Dennett talks about this in Breaking the Spell, and then he talks about this again in his little article, “Preachers who are not believers,” that people of faith and people who use faith as a process to know the world think that the fact that they use this process to know the world, this is actually a moral issue for them. They think that this way of thinking—I’m hesitant to use the word ‘reasoning’—this way of thinking about the world makes them better people. It imbues upon them a certain characteristic, a quality. A moral quality. Using this way of thinking is a value. And that somehow that value makes them a good person or a better person or more just or a more humble or noble person…. So many people fall for this idea that if somebody says that they are a person of faith, then somehow that means they must be a good person, or a decent person, or a kind person. When in fact that’s not true. It’s just a process of reasoning that will lead one away from the truth.”

From Dr. Peter Boghossian.

EDIT: This is now one of my favorite essays of all time — up there with “What I Believe” by Bertrand Russell.

One of the most commonly held debates between non-believers is that of whether someone is agnostic or atheist. The problem is that both terms have, in addition to their various, actual definitions, a number of associations that go along with them, and this generally injects confusion into the discussions.

What I wanted to do then was build a simple argument for why most agnostics should in fact consider themselves atheists. It goes like so:

1. The definition of atheism is someone who does not believe in a God or gods.¹ [OAD, see below]
   
   
2. You don’t believe in God or gods. [Your own claim]
   
   
3. Therefore, you are an atheist. [Deduction]

Or, in a simpler form: “If you don’t actively believe in God/gods, then you’re an atheist.” It doesn’t matter if you’re not sure about them NOT existing, but if you yourself don’t believe then you’re an atheist according to this argument.

Keep in mind that this argument, while strictly valid for this definition is not necessarily sound because there are multiple definitions for atheist. This makes the argument valid but unsound for other definitions which give a strong form, such as “The belief that there are no Gods.”

In short, if the definition of atheism entails a lack of belief, most agnostics are atheists. If it entails a belief in the lack of God/gods, then they aren’t.

Also, this argument doesn’t account for whether one would want to be considered an atheist — apart from whether they actually are one — as that’s something completely separate. ::

Notes

¹The Oxford American Dictionary lists as its only definition of atheism, the “disbelief in the existence of God or gods.” Disbelief is defined by The Oxford American Dictionary as, “inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.”

Jews, Muslims, and Christians claim that their holy books are so profound, and so prescient of humanity’s needs, that they could only have been written at the direction of an omniscient diety. An atheist is simply someone who has considered the claim, read the books, and found the claim to be ridiculous. ~ Sam Harris

[ The image above is for the 2010 campaign, but this is active for 2011 as well... ]

This week is A-Week on Facebook–meaning some people have created a campaign that starts this week to promote it “being ok to be without God”, or, being able to be “Good without God”.

As a rule I’m against such things because they tend to be hollow. But this is one that I’ll actually participate in.

The idea is to replace your profile picture with one of the image options available and then sport it for the entire week.

Again, if it weren’t for religion actually interfering with secular, rational society I would be one of the people looking down on this type of effort. But given state sentaor Wise’s new efforts in Florida to teach evolution as one of many “theories”, I’m getting onboard with this one.

I encourage any of you with similar views, who would normally never do something like this, to consider doing the same. ::