The New York Times recently ran a story about new London bus ads. That should be a pretty boring story, and it was in the UK, but it was definitely worth reporting for the US. The bus ads read, exactly, "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The ads were originally conceived as a response to Christian ads before it that tended to inform passersby that they were going to burn forever if they didn't believe. It was supposed to be a one time ad, but big-hitters like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) signed on to raise plenty of money for these ads to be seen all over London.
In the United States, this would probably involve a bit of violence, at least where I live in South Carolina. Using the "Could I be president one day?" test, we find that every religion is mostly acceptable on the public stage in America. Mitt Romney was a serious Republican contender and might have improved their chances of victory, and he was a Mormon. There was a bit of an issue with people slandering Obama's name by saying he was Muslim (and so what if he was?) but there have at least been one or two Muslim congressmen. Pete Stark of California waited to admit that he was an atheist until the very end of his political career, so he wasn't exactly sworn in on... whatever an atheist would be sworn in on.
We've now managed to finally elect a mostly black man, and that's a great step. Race-wise, we should hopefully never have a problem again. Gay people definitely have to fight to be elected, but that hasn't stopped about ten Republicans (Larry Craig, etc., truthfully much more desperate and abnormal than someone who is openly homosexual). Mitt Romney also represented the fair chances of America electing a robot for the first time. There just aren't any taboos left that have completely excluded someone from office in America except for atheism and agnosticism.
For a quick guide, let's distinguish between atheists and agnostics. If you are more likely to believe in bigfoot than a god, call yourself an atheist (hey, at least we have photos!). If you would believe in a god before bigfoot, you should be classified as an agnostic (hopeless romantics...). I'm glad we've finally cleared that up.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Nathaniel -
I agree with everything in your article except for your atheism itself, for I am a strong Christian. Other than our respective differences of beliefs, your post was absolutely true. I've said many times here and elsewhere how mainstream 'Christianity' (as opposed to what I believe to be real Christianity) has, over the totality of its history, murdered more innocent people in the Name of God than any other religion - and I have yet to see anyone challenge that assertion other than those who tried to claim that state-sponsored atheism killed more i.e. the Soviet Union and China - but what they were referring to wasn't a religious/nonreligious belief system, but a political dogma.
But please accept my kudos on your article. Oh, by the way - did you know the meaning of your first name is "A gift from God"? At least that's what the baby-name book said back when we were choosing our son's middle name. I do so love life's little ironies....
2 - Paul
Thank you for your unabashed support of atheist equality! My only concern was your description of your typical atheist, which I discuss on my blog. I am happy to see you have such an open mind, and I only hope you get to meet some more nonbelievers!
3 - Paul
Oh, and your bit about Romney the robot? Brilliance.
4 - freethought
I feel that as atehism grows so does the hatred by the evangelicals. I am an "outed" atheist only to my closest friends and family. You see, I have sensed the hatred toward my ilk and do not want to suffer from my beliefs. Yes I am being somewhat hypocritical, but better that, than burned at the stake or lynched.
5 - Christopher Rose
Not sure about in the USA overall, but I have serious doubts that Atheism (a term I dislike in the first place on the same not unreasonable grounds as to why we don't need a word for people who don't believe in Astrology), is actually a minority belief.
Surely the events of the last 8 years, whether it is the actions of Islamic extremists, Christian politicians like George "God told me to go to war" Bush or the recent actions of the Israelis have made religion an increasingly ugly proposition? I certainly hope so, for the world's sake!
6 - zingzing
alright, i can see your point here, but to truly be a minority, all the religious people would have to like each other or at least gang up together against the common enemy. and i don't really see that. atheism is just another type of belief in stuck to the pimple that is religion. they didn't ask to be taken along, but they're there anyway.
athiests and agnostics, if lumped together, would form one of the larger belief systems in america today. maybe not as big as the christians, but certainly very comparable.
so maybe that title is a bit tongue in cheek. i dunno. but i've never run into any problems because i don't believe in someone's god. i think it's more that when you believe in someone else's god, someone with another god gets all perturbed. if you don't simply don't believe, they just pat you on the head with a little "ahh, then you're just going to hell..."
7 - Cindy D
Nathaniel,
If you're totally fine with any Hindus, Muslims, or Jews, even though they automatically say that every other religion is wrong, then why be so offended by people who believe that every religion is wrong?
I will probably never again try to tell my mother I don't believe in god. Even though she's not religious, she believes in a "higher power".
I don't really understand why she got so upset. But it was palpable. I felt almost criminal. I'm sure if I said I decided to be a prostitute she would have had an easier time.
I don't know why it is that believers seem to be more okay with most other believers than someone who doesn't believe. I wish one of them would tell me.
Christopher Rose,
I've never liked the label either. In fact, I never used it 'til recently and I hate it. I like your point in #5.
8 - Dan(Miller)
I agree with the underlying claim that Agnostics and Atheists would have a hard time getting elected to major office in the U.S. However, as an Agnostic/Atheist, that doesn't bother me much. This is not a question of who is and who is not "entitled" to run for public office. Methodists, Atheists and sun worshipers are equally entitled to do so. However, the voters are entitled to vote for or against someone due to his skin color, his hair color, his sex, his religion, or whatever. We might well wish they wouldn't, but that is their right.
The definitions of Atheists and Agnostics provided in the article, while humorous, strike me as otherwise not very useful. I view Atheists and Christians as having very similar certainties as to the non-existence and existence, respectively, of a god; both are quite certain in their beliefs. Agnostics, in contrast, just don't know despite their efforts to find out. I characterize myself as an Agnostic Atheist because, although I don't know, I lean (rather heavily) toward the view that there is no god. Beyond that, I can't quantify it; the bigfoot metaphor does not help.
According to the author, Atheism should be considered a religion. I agree and so consider it, because I am unaware of any greater proof of the non-existence of a god than of the existence of God. The non-existence of a god is a matter of belief and, as far as I am concerned, that makes Atheism a religion. It seems unlikely, however, that convincing believers that Atheism is a religion would have the effect desired by the author. And, since Agnosticism is a matter of non-belief rather than of belief, it wouldn't do Agnostics much good either.
Meanwhile, some Atheists seem to be intent upon matters worse for themselves as well as for the rest of us non-believers. Suit has been filed demanding that the oath of office to be taken by President Elect Obama omit the words, "So help me God." He wants those words, the challengers do not want them, and the Constitution does not require them although they are traditionally included. If the President Elect wants to use those words, that's his prerogative and not my problem. Similar steps have been attempted to remove "In God we Trust" from U.S. money, and to eliminate prayers in the Congress. Pushing for these things strikes me as counterproductive, unless the idea is to strip all vestiges of theism from U.S. society -- a form of proselytizing through force of law which makes us seem obnoxious and is in any event unlikely to work. This may suggest an explanation for the problem raised by freethought in Comment #4.
The Unitarians probably have it right: believe or not as you wish, but don't try to impose your beliefs/non-beliefs on others.
Dan(Miller)
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Midgets have it rough, too.
10 - Dan(Miller)
Matthew,
Your lack of political correctness is astonishing. Please, Sir, they are height-challenged-Americans and therefore victims; anyone taller than 5' 6" is a heightist, and should be ashamed of him(her)self.
Dan(Miller)
11 - Baronius
Dan, is that why you don't believe in a higher power? The height?
12 - Zaki
Theist: One who believes in god
Atheist: One who does not believe in god
Gnostic: One who claims to possess knowledge
Agnostic: One who does not claim to posses knowledge
If a person that claims to be agnostic doesn't believe in god, then they're an atheist. Period. Whether they're agnostic or gnostic about their atheism is another matter. There are some atheists that claim to know god doesn't exist and others who, like myself, realize that that's something we cannot know at this time.
I talked about this confusion in a post of mine a while back: Atheism ain't a four letter word
13 - Dan(Miller)
Great Zeus, Baronius! You figured it out.
Dan(Miller)
14 - Christopher Rose
Cindy, those three religions all worship the same god, they just argue about the details, like some ugly family feud that has got way out of hand back in the Wild West. You know how bitter family feuds can get, right?
I can't get behind the idea that Atheism is any kind of religion at all, in fact I find the notion perverse. It does show why we don't need the word though, it just allows faithists to include and define the rest of us in their singular world view.
Nor does it seem necessary to disprove the existence of any gods. If that were the case, I would need to prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.
The burden of proof rests solely on the shoulders of those making this fantastical deistic claim. If not, I assert that I am actually the creator of this world and demand that you all worship me and give me loads of either money if you're male or sex if you're female.
More seriously, the killer point for me is that after 6,000 years of trying, the combined Judeo-Christian-Moslem monotheistic cult has come up with exactly zero proof - or even evidence - for the mere existence of god, let alone anything else.
That global tax exemption for the cult is a real solid achievement though.
15 - Baronius
Dan, it's medium-sized Zeus. (You keep setting me up for these!)
16 - Jet
"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."
Woody Allen
17 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
Thank you for sharing that. It is comforting to know that my life has some purpose.
Bless you.
(Bishop)Dan
18 - Dr Dreadful
Contrary to the author's assertion, there has been some fuss in Britain over the ad. It's newsworthy enough that all the major newspapers picked up the story.
Nevertheless, there's been no storming of the Bastille, as might happen if such ads appeared on buses in Washington DC...
...Or so I thought until I found this. Apparently the American Humanist Association has had similar ads on buses in DC since November, triggering predictable outbursts of whining from the usual suspects but no riots. Chris might just be onto something in his comment #5.
19 - Dan(Miller)
Dr D,
there's been no storming of the Bastille. Now you are getting me hopelessly confused. Isn't the Bastille somewhere in Chile, next to the Maginot line?
Dan(Miller)
20 - Dr Dreadful
No, Dan(M), it's in London, adjacent to Waterloo.
Let's keep the French military metaphors coming, though!
21 - El Bicho
This article totally falls apart at the end. It calls for an acceptance of atheism, but then cancels out his position and shows what a phony he is by belittling other belief systems.
22 - El Bicho
Dan, Suss wasn't being politically incorrect. He was speaking from experience, so that's allowed.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
Hindus, Muslims, and Jews do NOT worship the same god. The Jews and Muslims DO worship the same God - it's the writings of those that He sent that are the religious difference between the two.
Furthermore, the Jews and Muslims do NOT worship the same god as do the trinitarians, whose belief in a triune nature more closely mirrors that of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva - who are believed to be the three manifestations of their supreme Iswara.
In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia (in the entry 'Babylonia') notes that Baal was part of a Trinity (with a capital 'T'), and Herodotus notes that chaste women were kept at Baal's temples for his 'pleasure' if he decided to drop by - in other words, they were his wives. In modern times there is a major religion where chaste women are married to one of the manifestations of a trinity. It is ironic indeed how much modern mainstream 'Christianity' seems to have borrowed from Babylonian theology and the hated Baal of Hebraic times.
As far as I've been able to find, in Biblical times every nation or people from the Indus to the Mediterranean worshiped a trinity in one form or another EXCEPT for the Hebrews/Jews and of course several hundred years later the Muslims espoused the same strict nontrinitarian monotheism.
As always, facts should determine belief, rather than allowing one's beliefs to determine the facts.
24 - Dan(Miller)
El Bicho, very well. Nevertheless, God may forgive him but We never shall.
Doc, Thanks for the geography lesson. I hadn't known that loos of that sort were already available in London.
Dan(Miller)
25 - Baronius
Zaki's definitions are basically correct, philosophically and theologically. As a practical matter, most people in America see a continuum of belief as follows:
Atheist...Agnostic...Spiritual...Christian...Evangelical
Voters aren't crazy about in-your-face atheists or evangelicals. Let's face it; Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr. were not aggressively religious by American standards. And there was very little indication that either of the 2008 presidential candidates were motivated by religion. Our national comfort zone is a kind of don't-ask-don't-tell cultural mainline Protestantism.