Atheism is perfect. So says David Silverman.

My wife, who in some ways has become even more fervently churchless than I am, was the one who recommended David Silverman's book to me.

"Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World" takes no prisoners.

After reading the first few chapters, I can tell that Silverman makes other anti-religion writers like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens look like comparative pussies. 

In the book's introduction, he says:

But religion is not just incorrect, it is malevolent.

It ruins lives, splits families, and justifies hatred and bigotry, all while claiming to be the source of morality. People die and suffer needlessly because of religion; such a waste.

...Some (too many?) people call me a dick because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned.

Indeed, it is my duty as an American, as an atheist, and as a nice person to do what I can to take religion down -- not by force, not by law, but by truth.

And the truth is quite simple: all religions are lies, and all believers are victims.

Silverman takes it from there in the rest of the book, building argument after argument in favor of his atheism good, religion bad thesis. 

He's bold and persuasive. Here's his take on the perfection of atheism, which I heartily agree with.

Atheism is perfect. Yes, I know every religion says the same thing about itself, but religions are wrong. (Yes, I know they all say that about atheism too.)

What I mean by this is that atheism is so simple that it cannot have any flaws. It is simply a lack of a belief in gods, so unless there is a reason to believe in gods, it is a logically perfect position.

Once a single piece of scientifically valid evidence for the existence of any deity is unearthed, this will change, and atheism, being the single condition of the absence of a belief in a god, will have a flaw, but as this has never happened, I'm not nervous.

...In the history of mankind, atheism has never had a single moment of failure. Never, not even once, has atheism been proven wrong, and once is all we'd need to drop it completely.

If atheism had been proven wrong, if one god had been verified, if one supernatural event had been measured, if one ocean had really parted. or if one person ever really rose from the grave, I would quit my job because I'd be wrong.

[Silverman is the American Atheists president.]

...Prove me wrong, even once, and I'll convert. 

Comments

[Upsetter]

Well…atheism or being an atheist is defining oneself by the absence of the belief in god, gods, or deitys and that is considered as defining oneself in CONTRAST to those who DO believe in god, gods or deitys. Why is that? How comes one defines his or her stand by the absence of a certain beliefe?

IMHO, we all believe in something. And at the most basic common ground, we, as humans, at least believe in something, like, “my wife/husband will still love me tomorrow.” Or, “my dog is not gonna die tomorrow, because he is not old yet.”

To define oneself by the absence of something to believe in, I call: Just another believe. A believe in the non-validity of believing that something or someone might be worthy of believing in.

And yes, the believe in un-proven and un-scientific stuff is not very healthy. Not to talk about dealing in reality (species-truth). But to not believe is just impossible. We all believe in something.

Why and what for do we need to define ourselfs as atheits? THAT, in proper philosphical thinking, is sissy stuff.

Call yourself an existentialist, if you can. And IF YOU CAN means: If you are an existentialist from birth on. And not just some denier of some faith you once had.

Alerta! Alerta!

[zigy]

Yo Brian Heinz one question. Would in your world not be reggae ..as they constantly sing about god aka Jah? Would you and this x guy even call all reggae artists delusional ...would your world be without reggae or would reggae in your world only have lyrics about laboratory and science.....oh I hope not ..what a grey world...that be

[Upsetter]

Zigy, I can not agree more. More!

[Turan]

I consider atheism the norm, it's what we are when we are born - and perhaps for the next couple of years. It's not until later that through someone else's influence we start to believe in things like gods. Just as being born a man or woman, short or tall does not mean being defined as such - it's just what we are and this includes not believing in gods. A definition is something the mind insists on as part of its function of justifying its role.

[Upsetter]

Turan, we all play some role here, somehow. Nothing wrong with knowing what kind of role and why and what for, in my eyes . It helps to be a better actor. But that's just me.

[david r]

Turan, I sincerely beg to differ with your viewpoint. You made several logical fallacies in what you said.

You make it sound like a child brought up an atheist would never ever wonder if there was a God or gods once they reach their pre-teens. I cannot see that there is any justification for that conception that you have presented. It sounds like an assertion without any evidence to back it up. A kind of blanket statement generalisation picked up from meme soundbites floating around the internet without any logic to it.

It also appears to be bereft of the natural human propensity for curious, asking why questions to understand things and work things out, like the CERN machine, for example.

I have noticed in the last few years or so that people, usually younger persons, are using the word "atheist" in terms of cliche' trend patterns instead of even knowing enough about it historically and in world literature and discourse to differentiate between possible reality and religious-dogmatic conceptions that reveal more about perpetrators of righteousness that are hypocritical as opposed to just regular people. Hopping aboard the train or bus is piss easy compared to having already been on the bus for a ton load of time longer or even being the bus driver.

I don't subscribe to the adult mental conception in the human brain and mind that babies have an advanced philosophical belief system known as "atheism". It seems like a completely preposterous assertion of opinion attempting to be fact in light of the real truth and fact that babies can't even speak to assert their allegiance with that belief system which arrogantly claims to not even be a belief at all.

It takes a special kind of moron to look at the world and conclude there is nothing intelligent and organised about it.

[zigy]

Brian ? Nothing? Still in the lab?

[Turan]

We aren’t born with a belief system – whether of god or no god – we are born as a ‘blank slate’ and as so have ‘a lack of belief in gods’ (or anything else come to that). Atheism is a natural state – beliefless. It is not until later that beliefs are absorbed where the term atheism is used as a definition to perhaps define oneself or to define others thus putting one in a ‘pigeon hole’. Of course, anyone brought up in any belief system (including atheism) may later question their presumptions. Also of course, the natural state of an infant is to ask questions explore and wonder - though being ‘defined’ in some way or another can preclude questioning some aspects of life.

My point here is to question the habit we have of defining (in this case) people as believers or non-believers. Technically, defining can be useful but we tend to use it as a way of categorizing people in our attempts of wanting to be right - the mind's search for security. It is often what separates us from each other, the world about us – and ourselves.

[Upsetter]

David and Turan,

to me it's obvious that we, as humans, do play some role in life. With role I mean we fullfill some given duty. For example: If you are a parent, that's your role in a family-setting. If you are a boss in a working-place environment, that's your role in that kind of place. And so on.

Being a good boss and a good parent, that is what KNOWING your role well is all about, IMHO.

Knowing that we are all players on a stage, some wise dude said some time ago. That about it.

And once again, being an atheist means one defines oneself by opposing or in contrast to those who do believe in a god, gods or deitys. Therefore children are NOT born atheists. To be an atheist you have to know theism. To oppose the capitalistic ecconomical system, you have to know what it does.

And no, I don't think children are born as a "blank slate". But that's another story completely and too much to talk about here in this small comment-section right now.