An Atheist Manifesto

because we had an excerpt of this posted in this forum a couple of months ago, and it was locked after it turned into a flamefest. It's one atheist's manifesto - I haven't read it yet, but we have to point out that atheists do not speak for each other. This is not a proposal that we have all agreed on as our program to take over the world.

Only an excerpt was available in October, this is the finished product.
I think the title from huffingtonpost may have caused some of the flame atmosphere. I can only hope that people thoughtfully read all 4 pages before posting stupid unreasonable shit here. :)

You're right to high-lite at the onset that the title is An Atheist Manifesto
as opposed to The Bible. I have yet to see a Bible using the proper humility of A Bible. ;)

eg http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Both of mine just say "Holy Bible".

Ya know, but I guess originally I was really commenting on how many salvationist people describe their particular chosen Bible as "The" one true Bible, without acknowledging any validity in other "Holy" books. It's implicit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope you are indulging in some satire or sarcasm there. If not, I think I'll go and bang my head against a wall for a bit.

It's OK, as a Democrat, I'm used to being part of a "small wanking minority."

Now I'll go do something really interesting with the rest of my day, like explore the fascinating question of how any damaging movement was ever appeased by a sincere attempt to "understand them."

Only in the US.
Not that there are no religious people elsewhere, but certainly in Europe it is very well possible for a candidate to get elected without expressing belief in god.
I'd guess in the Muslim world expressing belief in god is also quite important to get elected (or appointed, whatever).

"small wanking minority" - is that an insult or what?

It's interesting to note that this "compassion and understanding" thing seems to be a one-way street.

Who's on a pedestal of superiority now?


So i take it your post is merely an expression of sarcasm.

Good catch.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We'll stop talking about religion once the morons stop trying to force it into government. This is a place for discussion, if you only want to talk to like minded people about the subject there are all the different religious DU groups. If you don't want to hear from people who disagree with you then stick to the groups and stay out of here.

Atheists are whining? People try to force fairy tales into every part of our lives but the moment we speak up you start acting like you're oppressed.

You seem to think your group, whoever they are, own the religion & theology forum. Unless you're one of the admin disguised as a standard DUer, I suggest you read the DU rules again. Perhaps you might also like to consider the ideals of democracy, where minority views aren't dismissed as 'meaningless', just because they are only held by a minority.

"profoundly ignorant as to WHY people are religious". NO I know why, I have thought about it a great deal".

"atheists have failed, they represent 5% of the population, and therefor are meaningless" Failed at what? Christians have had 2000 or so years what have they done with their majority. Oh right they are not a majority in the world, but still. We still have war, hatred, poverty. And as for meaningless, I'll let that go as just silly. Everyones beliefs have meaning, a least for them, maybe you should strive to do a little more understanding also. Take your own advise:

"If the atheists were willing to get off their pedastals of superiority and start having compassion for religious people and seeking to understand them"
It's hard to have compassion when respect for my position is not forthcoming from religious people. I have respect for all faiths and beliefs.

edited for poor spelling

That couldn't be more incorrect. As a general rule, I think they understand more than the believer will ever admit. Consider that you may not clearly understand the reasons supplied for questioning unsubstanitated beliefs in anything.

I could also point to myself as evidence that atheists understand religious motivation, seeking out knowledge in and believing in a wide variety of religious, supernatural, mystic, and spiritual concepts and practices along my path.

For the record, I don't think that certain knowledge exists somewhere that will prove or disprove God/s.
I do think that many of the 'reasons' given to support beliefs in unsubstantiated ideas betray rational inconsistencies. As this article states, faith is always there for the believer to cite when reason runs out.

edit: clarity

Nicely put, and accurate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

People are religious for a number of reasons. One is curiosity--they wish to understand their world. From the beginning of time people looked to the sky, the earth and their other surroundings and sought explanations. When they couldn't come up with natural explanations they made up god/s and other spirits as sources of the phenomena, their joys, and their woes. Even as science advanced over time and brought to light the real explanations for these phenomena many people clung to their religious beliefs. Scientists were laughed at, denounced as heretics, even killed for daring to go against the "word of God". Even today religion is used to impede scientific progress.

Another is fear, particularly fear of death. People typically have great trepidation about what happens when and after they die. Great legends have sprung up within the various religions about human death and afterlife, or reincarnation. This goes a long way in calming people who are terrified at the idea of only living their years on Earth and then sputtering out forever. It also helps religions wield a great deal of power over them by threats of "hellfire and damnation" in the afterlife.

A third reason is acceptance. Given that the majority of people are religious, and people are conditioned from birth to seek acceptance, an individual would do good to become religious. Children are generally indoctrinated into a religion (typically that of their parents) at an early age, and rewarded for "good performance" in Sunday School classes or similar groups. Even as adults we are given subtle or not-so-subtle cues that being religious is expected of us as "good citizens". Politicians spout off about how much Jesus has affected the course of their lives, Hollywood award winners thank God from the podium, prayers are said at public functions, atheists are denounced as "UnAmerican", etc. It takes a strong individual to not fall prey to the call to become religious in America just to fit in with the herd.


So don't give me this BS about Atheists not knowing why people are religious. Maybe it's the other way around.

Because certainly nobody who is currently an atheist was previously religious. If that were they case, you would be a giant windbag whose beliefs are being challenged and can only strike back with intolerance, ad hominem attacks, and faulty logic. Oh, wait :)

I am an atheist. I went to a catholic high school seminary for 3 years. I bought the whole bit. I believed I experienced god in many different and personal ways. I could go on if you need. Now, after applying thought and logic to it all, think it is just another version of the same old fairy tales. Too many similarities to Roman mythology (among others) to be ignored.

But it is nice to know that your viewpoint is to tell all minorities to fuck off because the majority doesn't agree with them. You've talked to the atheists. What is your next stop? GLBT? Jews? Blacks? Hispanics? I think the the GOP might have a job for you if you are looking for a pay raise.

"There is a reason that every democratic candidate expresses a belief in God. It's because they get voted in by the people, and the people believe in God."

What is the connection between the statement "the people believe in God" and the statement "every democratic candidate expresses a belief in God"? Are they just two statements that both happen to be true? Or are you relying upon some general principle concerning beliefs?

If you are relying on a general principle, then can we apply that principle to other beliefs?

For example, do the people believe the following?

(1) An ostrich egg is larger than a hen's egg.
(2) An ounce of gold is worth more than an ounce of silver.
(3) Sea water is too salty too alleviate human thirst.

Should we expect every democratic candidate to express those beliefs?

Thanks to beam me up scottie :)

I found The End of Faith to be pretty embarassing. Virtually every claim he makes is a sweeping generalization that can easily be disproved with only the tiniest ammount of effort. He continually tries to claim that "all" religion is certain ways when it is easily demonstratable that this is not true via direct counter-example. Thus his book ends up being yet another railing against a specific kind of religious belief - something which we already all agree on - while failing to logically substantiate any of the broader generalizations he makes.

The book left me concluding that religious beliefs, by which I mean the individual held spiritual beliefs of persons, vary widely and are like many other things in our life: something requiring blanace and moderation. In blance, they can be positive and beneficial things in some people's lifes. But distorted or taken to excess, they can become destructive.

Miller commented (.07.) that some philosophers argue that not all knowledge is based in logic. I find that there are types of knowledge, thought or knowing that are not rational or linear and need no concrete facts to support them, the understanding of art and music for example. I am a non-believer and will not sign on to a manifesto that tells others what dogma is acceptable, just as I will not accept having any dogma forced on me.

At least as much as art and music require "belief" to be understood, appreciated, and created that is. ;)
I wanted to bluntly make that point in the subject.

You bring up some things which deserve their own thread at least. :)

I agree with you that different kinds of knowledge are considered by philosophers, but question that there is any authentic knowledge which is non-linear, illogical, and without evidence.
Claiming knowledge doesn't equal having knowledge any more than it exactly equals self-assurance.
What gound does the person who claims possesion of illogical flavors of knowledge stand on as the source for and verification of their knowledge? Their imagination? Appeals to authority? Tradition? Majority belief? A too-easy example to bring up are murderers who "know" the murder is ordained by their God, who they "know" is the one, the only, God. Abortion clinic bombers have so-called "knowledge". The "gays are evil" tribe have so-called "knowledge". Mark David Chapman had similar "knowledge".

Are there any among us, God believer or non, who don't believe that if we could just reason with someone who owns false beliefs long enough we may possibly be able to change their mind and warm their heart? (Substitute Lieberman or Cheney for fun)
I ask, why is that? Just why is it that reasoning works?

Maybe Reason is God. It certainly has a record of affecting positive change in the world.
Ya never know... ... ... ;)

What is knowledge?, indeed. What illuminating rays must we, a people with slavery, The Enlightenment, the Holocaust, Vietnam, Global Warming Doesn't Exist, Homeless People Don't Exist et al in our midst, hold Knowledge up to? Is it possible that constant awareness is more valuable than certainty of vague knowledge?

Pragmatically, types of knowledge tend to fall easily into either a "depends on the mind" or "depends on the senses" category. Not that that analytical dichotomy is the be-all of understanding, but Rationalism and Empiricism remain very handy figureheads to rely on during the discussion. The various kinds of knowledge demand, hold up to, and/or collapse under various kinds of proof and scrutiny. How is "knowledge" verified? Of the kinds of knowledge, which ones have the deepest right to deny opposing knowledge?
Which ones reserve the right to say "Because God told me so and I don't need to prove it to you"?

Yes, I agree, there are different kinds of knowledge.

I think Sam Harris makes good points in debunking the logical reasons that support religious thinking. I felt by calling it a Manifesto he was looking for supporters to take up the challenge of eliminating religion and I want no part of that.
I was pointing out that Andrew Miller was pointing out that debunking the logical side of religious consciousness does not debunk all of religion. Some Eastern religions such as Buddhism, gain great insights and wisdom through meditation which I don’t see debunked in Harris’s rant. Miller points out…………..
The whole of Harris’ argument is simply that believing in God isn't rational. This, of course, ignores the primary claim of sophisticated religious believers (and the claim that Harris should be addressing if he truly wants to debate the merits of monotheism): that there are other kinds of knowledge besides factual knowledge, and that these other kinds of knowledge can be accessed through non-rational means. …..The fact that Harris ignores this body of literature (and in the process ignores the entire branch of philosophy called epistemology),

I raise the art and music point as a simple example of something that can be understood, enjoyed, felt, and even moved by, without any information except the experience of the event as it happens.

you ask
<<Are there any among us, God believer or non, who don't believe that if we could just reason with someone who owns false beliefs long enough we may possibly be able to change their mind and warm their heart? (Substitute Lieberman or Cheney for fun)
I ask, why is that? Just why is it that reasoning works?>>

I answer that I among you don't believe that everyone can be reasoned with. and as for "reason is god" all I can say is, god is many things to many people and it is not for me to judge. Logic and reason are good tools but they can't paint whole picture.

You don't think an understanding of music and art enriches the experience? You don't think that knowledge of sound and light allow for a deeper experience? Sure, they're not needed but if I had never studied music theory or physics I'd think I'd be poorer for it in lacking the appreciation of beauty they have brought me.

<<You don't think an understanding of music and art enriches the experience?

Of course I think it does

...and the various religions different styles of art.

He makes some assertions about views of God that are not necessarily the case, at least as far is Christianity is concerned. There is a rather clear trajectory in the Bible of steadily reduced involvement in human affairs. At present, we have the teachings and the leading of the Holy Spirit, which are accessible to all who want to access them. God is pretty much through with direct interference. Suffering is part of life, and we can do our best to reduce and prevent it.

Doing good and doing evil are choices independent of religion. I will agree that the exclusivity taught by many religions is a huge source of death and destruction. That is what happens when you surrender reason. Although I am a Christian, I simply will not accept that all 6 billion of us are supposed to be on the same path. That would be evil. We are all ultimately in this world together and as Dr. King said, we can learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

atheist fundamentalist dogmatism.

It makes a lot of sweeping generalizations about what religious people "think" about God which are not necessarily true, and speaks in absolutisms and stereotypes that really bespeak a degree of intellectual laziness what would embarass me personally.

If you want a really nice manefesto-like document on atheism, try the Atheist FAQ over at the Secluar Web. I feel what one is much more powerful.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

You should check it out - its really great, in my view.

Or do you have to pay royalties to the Amerikkkan Taliban?

Maybe you can tell us about how we destroyed Christmas next.

I never tire of reading right wing freeper talking points on DU.

I don't think a "right wing freeper" would post a link to a faq on atheism from the secular web and call it good. Did you even look at the link? It rationally, carefully lays out some facts about atheism that are commonly distorted by Christians and other religious folk and it does so without over-reaching or over-generalizing.

I'm not a christian or a theist. Just because I don't like dogmatic absolutistic kinds of statements doesn't mean I am a freeper.