My Secular Soapbox

I believe some of the greatest truths in the universe are that there is no God and that life has no true or universal meaning.

However, that is exactly why life has meaning in my opinion and interpretation. Not in spite of a lack of God or meaning, but directly because of it.

There is no God or plan and therefore my life and the lives of others can find meaning in whatever pursuits we most identify with.

My current personal meaning and purpose are simply to be happy and to further the happiness of others when and if I reasonably can.

Atheists say they don’t believe in God because they don’t believe there is evidence of God. Obviously overlooking the arguments that could be given to suggest the probability of God, atheism itself believes things without sufficient proof. I could give many examples, but I will give two.

First, atheists believe in evolution. I’m not saying I don’t believe in evolution, but, we have never once observed macro-evolution, especially in a natural environment. We observe what we believe is evidence of macro-evolution having occurred, much like the evidence we believe proves God, but still, we have never actually scientifically observed evolution.

Second, many atheists believe in aliens, even though there has never been any proof found to support the existence of life anywhere else. The odds of life existing on our planet are so incredibly small it shouldn’t have happened, let alone the prospect of it happening again (without God). And yet, atheists believe in aliens without having any evidence. 

But there is substantial evidence for the existence of God, including, but not limited to: morality, consciousness, life, DNA, existence, the laws of the universe, philosophy, supernatural events, prophecy, experience, sense of purpose, the inner desire for more.

Philosophy and morality are fields of study. The existence of conflicting moral philosophies means that “morality” can’t be solid evidence for anything.

Ok, settle in kids, this is gonna be a long ride.

@michaelborror

1. The reason atheists don’t believe in God.

Yes, most nonreligious atheists (such as myself) don’t believe due to lack of evidence, but it’s important to remember that’s not the case for all atheists. 

You kinda gotta ask each individual atheist you converse with what their reason is for nonbelief, because it can vary wildly.

2. “[A]theism itself believes things without sufficient proof”

a) Nope. Atheism isn’t a belief system. 

Atheism is the disbelief in one single question. Atheism is no more a belief system than theism is.

It’s not a true ism.

b) Different atheists have different belief systems.

I follow several other atheists here on Tumblr, and apart from the fact we all agree in the nonexistence of deities, our views on things like politics and morality vary wildly. 

Literally, the one and only thing all atheists have in common is the disbelief in a deity.

Some are sexists, some are racists, some are feminists, some are socialists, some are centrists, some are conservatives, some are progressives, some are queerphobes while others are LGBT+ supporters, some believe in the supernatural and others don’t.

3. “[A]theists believe in evolution”

a) Atheism is in no way connected to evolution.

If evolution were proven to be wrong it would have no effect on my disbelief in a deity. I’d just be like “Well, guess I was wrong about that and now we don’t know how we have the diversity of life! lol”. 

Evolution may be a threat to creationist belief, but it has no connection to atheism.

b) Not all atheists believe in evolution.

Most do, but not all.

c) Evolution is a proven fact. How it happens is what is potentially debatable.

Evolution is “the change of allele frequencies between each consecutive generation”. 

In layman’s terms, it’s “offspring aren’t perfect exact replicas of their parents”, which is an uncontested fact. You aren’t an exact replica of your mom, therefore you are proof of evolution.

Evolution By Means of Natural Selection is a model that explains how evolution works which could potentially be proven false (though we have so much evidence supporting it that it’s highly unlikely). 

We just shorten the title of the model to “evolution” to make it easier to say.

d) Most Christians believe in evolution.

Believing in evolution is not mutually exclusive to being a Christian. In fact, most Christians believe in evolution. 

When I was in high school (a public Catholic one), for example, my Catholic biology teacher made a point of saying “Who’s to say God didn’t create animals and plants via evolution?”

4. “We have never once observed macroevolution”

a) as @thedudebuddha pointed out, micro and macroevolution are the same thing.

Various micros give you a macro. 

The only difference between micro and macroevolution is time.

b) Yes, we have.

DNA analysis has provided us with a boatload of evidence (e.g. the fusing of Chromosome 2, Neanderthal interbreeding with modern humans, etc).

So has embryology.

For example, human embryos start out having gills. For quite a while they also have tails. And for much of their development, they are indistinguishable from other kinds of embryos.

Can you tell which of these is a human?

How about now?

Chickens have the genes for teeth, they’re just dormant. Scientists have been able to reactivate the teeth gene in a chicken embryo (clearly they haven’t seen Jurassic Park and learned that this is a horrible, horrible idea ;P).

And then there are fossils and living creatures.

You want a partial wing? Look at emus.

You want a fish that can climb a tree? Meet mudskippers.

You want a fish in the process of evolving legs? Meet Tiktaalik. 

In fact, Tiktaalik could not have been found if what we know of evolution were not true. 

They way they found it was by going “Okay, if what we know about the environment at this time is true and if fish were indeed evolving legs at this time, then we should be able to find a fish with transitional attributes somewhere around this area.”

And lo and behold, there was Tiktaalik, exactly in the geographical area and rock layer they had predicted it would be.

5. “Many atheists believe in aliens even though there has never been any proof found to support the existence of life anywhere else .”

a) Believing in aliens has nothing to do with atheism.

b) What do you mean by “believe in aliens”?

Most of us believe that there is a huge probability that alien life exists somewhere out there in our insanely massive universe, yes, because the mathematical probability is really close to a guarantee. 

If you mean “aliens have visited us” then no, most of us don’t believe that (some religious atheists, such as Scientologists and Raliens, definitely do, but they are in the minority). 

c) As @apenitentialprayer​ very accurately and eloquently pointed out, atheists who believe in the existence of aliens don’t believe in aliens in the same way that Christians believe in God

In the case of the former definition of “believe in aliens”, it is actually based on science and mathematics.

We know that it’s actually extremely easy for the building blocks of life to be formed by natural means. 

It’s been done in lab settings (source 2) and amino acids have been found on meteors on several occasions (source 1, source 2, and source 3).

We also know that it has happened at least once before for sure (here on Earth), so we have enough variables to work with to calculate the probability of the existence of life elsewhere (it’s really high). It’s by no means a guarantee, but it’s pretty darn close.

In the case of God, however, we have zero variables to work with to calculate the likelihood of the existence of ANY god, let alone the Abrahamic one.

6. Proof for God

a) Morality

Morality is not evidence for the existence of God. 

It is also very easily explained by evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology.

First, let’s define what a sense of morality is so we’re all on the same page: A sense of morality is, at its most basic, the ability to discern right/good from wrong/bad.

What’s the evolutionary advantage of having morality?

Well, if you’re gonna live in groups (because there’s safety in numbers), you gotta get along and work together. How do you do that? Through a mutual understanding of what behaviour is acceptable and what is undesirable.

This is why every complex social animal has at the very least a rudimentary sense of morality.

One of the easiest ways to test for morality in non-human animals is to test whether the test subjects have an understanding of fairness.

E.g. When scientists tested pre-verbal human toddlers for a sense of morality they showed a video where one person got a cookie and the other didn’t; toddlers that showed surprise at the disparate cookie-giving demonstrated a sense of fairness/morality.

The most commonly used method to test for this is fairly straightforward and is usually done in one of two ways: 

a) Give two test subjects the same task to perform, then upon completion give one a treat and the other something significantly less desirable.

b) Set the first test subject to do a task for a treat, then give the second test subject a treat without requiring they perform a task and see what the first test subject’s reaction is.  

If they have no reaction in either situation, they likely don’t have a sense of morality (or at least not in a way we would readily recognize).

Now, here are some examples of animals who pass these tests:

Capuchin monkeys - In the case of version A of the test one monkey was given yummy grapes and the other was given a cucumber. 

Given that the response was to angrily chuck the cucumber on the ground and throw a tantrum, I’d say it’s fair to say they got a pretty solid pass. 

They also pass when tested with version B when the monkey that was given a task sees the other monkey get a treat they refuse to keep doing the task. 

Chimpanzees -  Refuse to exchange tokens with researchers in exchange for food if they see another chimp got a better reward for the same amount of tokens.

Long-tailed macaques react not that different than Capuchins. Also a pass.

Crows and Ravens tested with version B reacted the same way as the monkeys.

Dogs - A 2016 study found that dogs understand the concept of fairness and become resentful when treated unfairly. | Source 2 | 

My dog would literally pout in a corner if she thought we had wronged her by laughing at her, 

and she would immediately come to the defense of anyone she believed was being threatened by a bigger person, scolding the perceived bully angrily until she deemed the matter resolved (she was the size of a cat, so she couldn’t do much more than scold loudly, lol). 

There are also other ways to determine a sense of fairness:

Chimpanzees have been recorded consoling fellow chimps who were being bullied. |Source 2|

Wolves & other canids - ”During play, dominant members of the pack will engage in role reversal with weaker ones, rolling over on their backs to give low-status playmates a chance at “winning,” as well as lessening the force of their bites to prevent injury.” 

“If one playmate accidentally bites another too hard, it “apologizes,” play-bowing again to show that it is still playing, despite the slip-up.”

^ Play-bowing, how dogs invite friends to play and apologize if they bite too hard

Dogs also display guilt when they know they’ve been caught doing something wrong.

Exhibit A:

Rats - If a rat realizes that every time they get food from their bowl the rat in the next cage receives a shock, the rat refuses to eat. 

b) Consciousness, life, DNA, existence, the laws of the universe, philosophy, experience, sense of purpose, the inner desire for more

Not evidence for God. 

You don’t get to just claim these things are evidence for God, you have to show how they’re evidence for a deity through evidence.

c) Supernatural events

There is literally not a single shred of reliable evidence that the supernatural exists.

d) Prophecy

The God of the gaps is a simple concept that points out that God was created by man to explain what we did not understand. Since the era of enlightenment or the age of reason (1685-1815), God has been asserted by religious people to account for any natural phenomena that is not yet understood. Even Isaac Newton, who figured out the laws of gravity that governed the planets, reached a point where he could not comprehend the laws of physics and he said that must be where God steps in.

Over time the intellectual community and religious authorities (mostly) have stopped claiming that God makes the Sun rise and the storms come. However, modern religious scholars, and the common believer especially, have not given up on this argument that God is evidenced by what we cannot explain. Today, people point to three major things: consciousness, the creation of the Universe/beginning of life, and sometimes dark matter. FYI, Bill O’Reilly still thinks we are unable to explain the tides of the Ocean.

While people today think their arguments, such as Intelligent Design, to be more sophisticated, but the fact is that they are following the same pattern of their predecessors from antiquity and simply attributing anything not fully understood to God.

Even worse, some people in our modern society still practice what is known as the witchcraft causality theory. This is when people attribute common occurrences they cannot explain on either God or actual witchcraft (or any other form of supernatural force). Remember, the concept of witches in western culture comes from The Bible. People claim that storms are punishment for sodomy, that climate change is God’s will and cannot be understood, and they won money because of karma.