Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

by Dan Barker

Where did we get the idea that words on a page speak truth? Shouldn’t truth be the result of investigation and analysis?

the bible is not a reliable source of truth: it is unscientific, irrational, contradictory, absurd, unhistorical, uninspiring and morally unsatisfying.

‘the Christians’ react to your questioning as they do, not because you have lost your faith, but because you have lost theirs!”

“I’m much happier now. To be free from superstition and fear and guilt and the sin complex, to be able to think freely and objectively, is a tremendous relief.”

One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism—but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question “Do you have a belief in a god?” with a “yes” (by any definition of “god”), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer “yes” you are an atheist—you are without a belief in a god.

If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it. Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don’t have to put any work into proving your case or overcoming objections. You can “just believe.” Truth does not ask to be believed. It asks to be tested. Scientists do not join hands every Saturday or Sunday and sing, “Yes, gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!” If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept. Faith is actually agnosticism. Faith is what you use when you don’t have knowledge. When someone says, “The meeting is at 7:30, I believe,” they are expressing some doubt. When you tack “I believe” onto a comment, does that make it stronger? If faith is valid, then anything goes. Muslims believe in Allah by faith, so they must be right. The Hindus are right. The Greeks and Romans were right. More people claim to have seen or been healed by Elvis Presley than ever claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. With faith, everybody is right.

Religionists sometimes accuse nonbelievers of having faith. Every time you flip a light switch you exercise faith, they say. But this is not faith; it is a rational expectation based on experience and knowledge of electricity. If the light fails to turn on, my worldview is not shattered.

The light does not turn on because of my expectation. Rather, my expectation is based on experience. If lights were to begin failing most of the time, I would have to adjust my expectations. (Or adjust my electrical system.) But religious faith is not adjustable. It remains strong in spite of a lack of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence.

At most, the theists might prove the existence of a current gap in human knowledge, but this does not justify filling the gap with their god. After all, what happens when the gap closes someday? The gaps are actually what drive science—if we had all the answers there would be no more science.

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. Creationism can’t do that: it tries to explain complexity with more complexity, and so explains nothing.

The demand for “absolute” morality comes only from insecure religionists who don’t trust (or have been told not to trust) their own moral reasoning. (Voltaire quipped: “If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”) Mature people are comfortable with the relativism of humanism since it provides a consistent, rational and flexible framework for ethical human behavior—without a deity.

There is no evidence that theists are more moral than atheists. In fact, the contrary seems to be true, as portrayed by centuries of religious violence. Most atheists are happy, productive and moral. There have been some wonderful Christians and wonderful atheists. There have been horrible Christians and horrible atheists. Stalin was a horrible atheist. Hitler was a horrible Christian. People should be judged by their actions, not by their beliefs.

A true moral guide should have some principles. If humans are supposed to treat other humans in certain ways, or to avoid treating humans in other ways, then there should be some examination of the general value of human life and of human rights. Yet this is not to be found anywhere in the bible.

The intrinsic intolerance of Christianity cannot be candy-coated.

The loftiest biblical principles are obedience, submission and faith, rather than reason, intelligence and human values.

Since this is the only life we atheists have, each decision is crucial and we are accountable for our actions right now.

Many believers, including Christians who are ordered to “bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ,” have an underlying distrust of human reasoning. Yearning for absolutes, they perceive relativism—the recognition that actions must be judged in context—as something dangerous when it is the only way we can be truly moral.

Theists are afraid people will think for themselves; atheists are afraid they won’t.

There is no democracy in the “word of God.” In the bible, humans are “worms” and “sinners” deserving damnation and “slaves” who should humbly submit to all kings, heavenly and earthly.

Championing the “consent of the governed” over the authority of a sovereign, the Declaration of Independence is unabashedly anti-biblical. We

If the only way you can be forced to be kind to others is by the threat of hell, that shows how little you think of yourself. If the only way you can be motivated to be kind to others is by the promise of heaven, that shows how little you think of others.