Below we cover some simple questions about Atheism that are often asked, and give some reasoned answers. Many questions have also been answered by other authors, so if you would like more detail, feel free to search out some of the texts listed in the Book of Books.

       Q. How can Atheists be sure there is no god/soul/heaven?

       A. Before you can even ask such a question, you have to define god, and where such a concept came from. Were you born thinking such a thing existed? Or were you taught it from a young age? You want to believe such a thing exists, that there is also some sort of supernatural afterlife; we all have such feelings as children. It alleviates our fear of our own deaths and the fear of the deaths of our loved ones. But no such thing exists. When you die, your body decomposes. None of us wants to end existence, but we all will, someday.

       Also, you need to ask yourself why people claim a god exists. Beyond blind faith in a religious tome and fear of death, there is the additional attempt to explain why the natural processes happened that brought us here. People once thought that the gods occasionally stole the sun. Now we have learned what a solar eclipse is. People once thought god caused earthquakes. Now we know how plate tectonics work. People once thought god caused wind, rain, pregnancy, the moon, the sun, infections, disease, and war. We now know the true causes of those. One day in the future, they will say, “People once thought god caused the Big Bang. We now know the true cause of that.”

       Once you answer the questions of the definition of god and why people claim such a thing exists, you will realize that asking Atheists why they are sure god doesn’t exist is really putting the cart before the horse. A much better way to attack the problem is to ask a theist why they are sure that god does exist. With no logical answers to the question, and no proof of their point of view, why should we believe in such a made-up concept? The viewpoint of the Atheist makes infinitely more sense.

       Q. Isn’t it true that all Atheists are immoral/communists/satanic/depressed/crazy/fatherless?

       A. No. Atheists are just regular people like you. Read the Book of Morality to discover the true source of morals. Most Atheists are moral, just like most people in general. Atheists come in all political stripes, and do not believe in the concept of a devil, just as they don’t believe in a god. Just like the general population, a few are depressed but most are not, a few have mental problems but most do not, a few were raised without a father figure but most were not.

       Q. Isn’t it true that Atheist countries are poorer, more immoral, and less prosperous?

       A. Again we have an old myth based upon communism’s usage of Atheism as a way to break the power of churches. Totalitarian institution of a doctrine, such as was done in the USSR and is currently done in China, does not equal a cultural belief in that doctrine. Few in those countries self-identify as “Atheist,” most instead identify as “non-religious.” In cultures where Atheism is widely accepted and not forced upon the population by government—some researchers call this “organic Atheism” as opposed to the “coercive Atheism” above—there are statistically lower rates of poverty, homicide, infant mortality, and illiteracy; and high rates of income, education, and gender equality.

       These findings are well-documented in Phil Zuckerman’s chapter Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, part of The Cambridge Companion to Atheism referenced in the Book of Books. This chapter can be found on the internet at www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html as well. Zuckerman includes numerous statistics on the population of non-believers (he estimates between 500 and 750 million people do not), and on the measures of societal health mentioned above.

       Q. Should Atheists be worried about going to hell? What about Pascal’s Wager?

       A. Not at all. There is no such thing as hell. Even Agnostics (who say they don’t know if there’s a god or not) have no such worries. They say that if there is a god, he surely judges you on the content of your character and actions, not on which of the hundreds of different god-beliefs you subscribe to. Read the Book of Arguments for more detail on this subject.

       There is neither god nor hell to worry about. We all get to live on this earth for a while, and then we die, end of story. It’s really not that scary of a proposition. Death is not to be feared, for you will never experience it. Once you stop concerning yourself with death, you can better get on living your life.

       Q. Do Atheists hate or deny god or the concept of a soul?

       A. There is neither god nor soul to deny. And there certainly is no hatred, saying that you hate god is like saying that you hate Yosemite Sam. Both are fictional characters. How did you come up with a god to ask the question about anyway? The same way Yosemite Sam came about: somebody made him up.

       In theory, I could raise a generation of children on a deserted island, and instruct them from the earliest ages that an invisible pink unicorn created the world, and she creates miracles such as the sun going up and down every day, and that we must eat ham and pineapple pizza once a week lest we be cast down into a pit of poison ivy after our death and left there to itch for all eternity. Add on a “holy book” that has the teachings of the invisible pink unicorn, plus some additional moral teachings and stories. Then we could have weekly ham and pineapple pizza dinners, and read the holy book, and I could tell them they’re all safe now, after they die they’ll go to the sunny field of clover instead.

       Then say that one day those children grew up, had children and grandchildren, and taught them the holy word of the invisible pink unicorn. And one day one of those grandchildren came knocking on your front door, and preached the holy word of the invisible pink unicorn, and you denied it. Those grandchildren could ask you the very same question asked above. Why do you hate the invisible pink unicorn? You’re just denying her existence. You have been presented with her holy words, why do you say they are untrue? Aren’t you afraid of the pit of poison ivy? Don’t you want the sunny field of clover? Heck, without her, the sun won’t go up!

       And of course, you would reply as I do: Where did you hear about invisible pink unicorn? How do you know the source was correct? Just because the “holy word” is several generations old doesn’t make it true. How could such a being cast you into torment just because you weren’t raised on the island? Through the science of astronomy, we know the earth rotates and the sun is fixed, why do you say the sun goes up and down because of the actions of the invisible pink unicorn?

       Of course such a religion is silly. But it is just as logical, and just as well-based, as Christianity or any other religion. The premises are all false.

       Q. Aren’t Atheists terrified of death, since they don’t think there is a heaven?

       A. Actually, Atheists are probably less afraid of the state of “being dead” than theists. Unlike the traditional theist, who might worry about being judged in some way and possibly found wanting, or might worry that the afterlife is different than they imagined; the Atheist knows that there is no afterlife, and they will not experience anything. You’ll never know what it’s like to be dead, because to “know,” you have to be alive. Atheists rightfully avoid death and celebrate life, though, because they know that this life is all we get.

       Q. Is homosexuality (or gay marriage) immoral?

       A. We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?

       As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.

       To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, homosexuality and gay marriage neither pick your pocket nor break your leg.

       Q. Since homosexuality is okay, have we opened the door to child molestation, bestiality, and polygamy?

       A. This is a commonly-used extrapolation by theists who argue the immorality of homosexuality. It is also quite an absurd argument. As stated above, homosexuality between consenting adults is morally acceptable. However, neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent, so any sexual activity with them would be morally unacceptable. Especially in the case of children, sexual activity is doubly immoral, in that we are both causing harm to the child and to the child’s parents.

       The extrapolation to polygamy is quite curious, given the history of many religions in support of it. The bible supported polygamy and extramarital concubines, and polygamy was supported by the Mormon religion until they sought statehood in the United States. And, in some Islamic countries polygamy is still legal. Should polygamy be legal? Now we are treading into the area of cultural norms, and (if all participants are willing adults) outside the concern of mere morality. There are significant cultural benefits to only officially sanctioning pair-bonding, not the least of which is simplicity of laws. Beyond that, many cultures with polygamy have been tied to the subjugation of women and to attempts at child marriage, which are immoral.

       So, although lasting polygamous relationships between consenting adults are possible and the participants should not be guilty of any crime, still there is a legitimate argument that society should only officially sanction pair-bonding with a legal status such as marriage, due to the inherent complexities and confusion of polygamy. Preventing homosexuals from using the “marriage” structure only causes undue hardships on innocent people who are otherwise fulfilling all the other duties of members of society. And granting them marriage causes little to no confusion, harm, or complexity to the rest of us.

       Q. Do Atheists believe that religious people are inherently immoral?

       A. No, as we learned in the Book of Morality, most people apply the concept of sympathy for other people in their daily lives, regardless of religious beliefs. In fact, attempts at converting non-believers are, in their eyes, “helping” or “protecting” another person. They are misguided, but most are moral. However, some theists will cross the border, and in certain cases accept written teachings or the words of preachers over their own innate sensibilities. When this happens, you can have otherwise good people committing immoral actions, in the name of religion.

       Q. Is it true that there are no Atheists in foxholes?

       A. Absolutely not. In the United States, there is a group called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, or M*A*A*F. (We list their website in the Book of Resources.) There are larger secular and Atheist populations in Europe, and there are undoubtedly quite a few Atheists in their military organizations. The Czech Republic, a military ally of the United States, is incredibly secular, with only a third of its population self-identifying with a religion, and less than twelve percent attending services regularly. By many estimates over half of their population consider themselves Atheists. So it would be absurd to say that a country that openly boasts of being the most Atheistic in Europe has “no Atheists” in their foxholes.

       Q. Why do Atheists dislike religion or prayer in public schools? Couldn’t Atheist children just ignore that part or opt out?

       A. The easiest way to answer to this common question from theists is to turn it around. What if the particular school was 90% Muslim and you were Christian? Would you be comfortable having your child exposed to daily prayers that say that infidels will burn in hell? Would you like your child to be ostracized for opting out?

       Of course not. The choice of religious indoctrination is a choice for adults (for themselves) and of parents (for their children). Children should not be exposed to religious indoctrination against their parents’ wishes in a vulnerable setting such as a public school.

       Q. So why should children who believe in creationism and a young earth be exposed to “indoctrination against their parents’ wishes” like the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution? Isn’t that indoctrination into Secular Humanism?

       A. Merely because a religion says that 2+2=5 does not make it so, nor should it exempt their child from mathematics. If religious teaching says something that the physical world shows is obviously false, schools have no obligation whatsoever to give in to such religious beliefs. Schools are charged with teaching our children about the physical and social world around them, and the tools used to understand it. Religion should deal only with the “metaphysical,” that which is beyond the inspection of the physical world. Schools must remain silent on such issues, to permit parents to teach as they see fit. But if a religion tries to pronounce on the physical world, and science clearly shows a different conclusion, science must be taught, as religion has overstepped its bounds.

       Theists often confuse Atheism and Secular Humanism with science. While Atheism and Secular Humanism actively oppose the tenets of religion, science does not. Science merely tests the physical world objectively, and accepts what is provable, and discards what is not provable. That science has shown us the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are supported by vast mountains of evidence with no credible evidence against does not mean science is anti-religion, just that it is pro-evidence. If that physical evidence disproves a major religious belief, it is incumbent on the theist to question why their beliefs contradict actual evidence. Religious beliefs, absent evidence, should be confined to the metaphysical, and have no place whatsoever in the curriculum of a public school beyond history class or something like a comparative religions class.

       Q. Hasn’t it been proven that prayer helps the ill?

       A. Individual prayer by ill people can help a person calm themselves down, which can have a positive health effect by lowering blood pressure and stress. This effect is the same as that of non-prayer meditation, and it comes completely from a person’s own mind and body, there is no supernatural effect. In addition, a religious person who is informed of the prayers of others may gain the same sense of well-being, again a product of their own minds. If you have a firm (but erroneous) belief that prayers will help you, and you are told that dozens of others are personally praying for you, you might achieve a state like meditation. Of course, this would work even if they were not praying for you, but you were told that they were.

       But as for “intercessory” prayer, or prayer from a distance without knowledge of the prayer being given, there are no credible, peer-reviewed, repeatable studies that have shown any effect whatsoever. None at all. And there never will be, because supernatural happenings such as healing by intercessory prayer do not occur in the real world.

       Q. Can an Atheist/skeptic believe in things like UFOs or Bigfoot?

       A. The short answer is yes, simply because such things are scientifically and demonstrably possible. Intelligent beings on other planets could build spaceships, just as we have, and visit other worlds. There were other intelligent hominids who coexisted with Homo sapiens (we now have evidence of the existence of Homo floresiensis, who anecdotally might have become extinct only as recently as the last few hundred years), and it may be possible—though quite unlikely—that a few remaining specimens are still alive and successfully hiding from us.

       However, such claims should always be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many who promote such beliefs very much want to believe in something different, much as theists very much want to believe in a god. Without firm evidence, we must assume that such claims are likely untrue. So for Bigfoot, the jury is out, but he likely doesn’t exist. Regarding UFOs, aliens likely exist somewhere (certainly if the universe is infinite, much as the ten dice will all land with the same number if you roll them enough times), but there is a great deal of doubt about whether they have yet visited the Earth, or even if they ever will.

       Q. There are so many charities/hospitals out there that are associated with religion, why aren’t there any Atheist/skeptic charities/hospitals?

       A. This misconception arises because in the United States quite a few hospitals are named by their religious affiliation, or after a particular Catholic saint, even though they receive a considerable amount of public funding. This testifies to the organizational powers and pervasiveness of religion in the U.S., not to any uncharitable nature of the small minority of Atheists in America. It would be akin to saying that Sikhs must be uncharitable, why aren’t there any Sikh hospitals in America? Logically, it’s an absurd argument.

       But moreover, it’s patently untrue. As mentioned in the Book of Charity, Atheists have started quite a few charities and donated to and started many hospitals. Many Atheists and skeptics have given billions of dollars toward charities that have improved the lives of their fellow citizens. In the Book of Charity, we read about Girard’s support of hospitals and orphans, Lick’s donations for science, Carnegie’s libraries, Soros’ democracy initiatives, Buffett’s boys and girls clubs, Gates’ efforts to vaccinate against disease, Indu Tai’s clinics and hospitals, Penn & Teller’s blood drives, and the donations of the Atheist community to help the victims of the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 hurricanes. Atheists have time and time again donated time and money to helping out humanity.

       It is clear that Atheists and Freethinkers have made enormous contributions specifically to hospitals, and in general to a host of other charitable causes.