Translator: Leonardo Silva Reviewer: Mile Živković
Thank you.
Our political and social spheres
seem to be filled with endless ideas, ideologies and beliefs.
For the most part, democratic nations tend to tolerate these views.
They are built upon freedom of thought and speech, after all.
But there is one notion, one idea, that is criminalized in 19 countries.
In 13 countries,
promulgating this view can result in a state-issued death sentence.
One nation has gone so far
as to legally define adherence to this notion as a form of terrorism.
In nine EU countries,
those who cause offense when supporting this viewpoint
can face up to three years in prison.
In America, seven states' constitutions
at one point banned those who adhere to this idea
from holding any form of public office.
And the American Boy Scouts
still ban mere children from joining their ranks to this day
if they hold these convictions.
Upon hearing this, many, myself included, would likely conclude
that, for such systematic opposition to a mere idea to occur globally,
there must be something fundamentally wicked and immoral
enshrined in the views of those who support it.
One might go so far as to assume
that this global response is, in some way, warranted,
for what source of an idea other than a despicable one
could face such a response?
The idea that I'm referring to,
the notion that has been suppressed, denied of voice and otherwise invalidated,
is atheism.
Atheism is an ungodly notion.
As an atheist, I would accept this definition
because it posits a lack of belief in the existence of a god, gods,
or other universal deities.
To others, though, there is a more sinister connotation here.
"Ungodly" not only suggests irreligiosity, but also immorality.
This is exactly what the atheist is in the eyes of a religious zealot.
To them, the two concepts are intrinsically inseparable,
for a religious zealot says
that the atheist not only denounces a god's existence,
but also denounces basic human morality,
and they have forced this definition of atheism
on otherwise well-intentioned society,
which has allowed prejudice and bigotry to fester.
Indeed, "atheist" has always been used as a pejorative term by society at large.
Being atheist, it may seem, means being ignorant, elitist and self-obsessed.
Given this fierce opposition and institutionalized prejudice, then,
surely there's a reason that this movement has garnered such controversy.
Surely, it is justified.
Surely, the atheist is ignorant, is elitist, is self-obsessed.
What I would like to propose is a simple rebuttal.
These claims are categorically false.
The narrative that has been constructed by deeply conservative organizations,
who are dependent on religion
for the preservation and propagation of their doctrine,
cannot be maintained.
An obvious question then follows:
if these statements are false,
if atheists aren't morally reprehensible individuals,
then why do they face such discrimination?
Why do so many feel prejudice against atheists is both warranted
and, moreover, acceptable?
I contend that there is an equally obvious answer to this question,
for it's widespread ignorance as to what atheism is and what atheists believe.
As an atheist myself,
I do feel the onus rests on our movement
to explain and define what we are and indeed what we are not.
That's why, albeit in a generalizing manner,
I should like to address some common misconceptions about atheism.
Possibly the most important: atheism is not a religion.
Equally, atheists are not religion - are not religious, rather.
In fact, the whole purpose of atheism is to dispense with religion
and the dogmas surrounding it.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Religion is the belief in a superhuman controlling power, or the supernatural,
generally involving faith and worship.
As the American Atheists have pointed out,
if atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.
What is implicit in some people's assertions, though,
that atheism is a religion,
is that atheism is somehow just another belief system, like all the rest,
when in fact this could not be farther from the truth.
The only faith I have, personally,
is in basic human decency and the strength of an empirical scientific process,
and I refrain from idolization of any kind.
This is what separates the theist from the atheist,
and whilst it is true that many extremely intelligent individuals
and respected academics
can reconcile religious belief and the pursuit of knowledge,
it is my opinion that they are, at least to some extent,
a detriment to one another's progress.
Thus, in my embrace of reason and rationality,
I have discarded religion, not only as merely unnecessary,
but, in many respects, truly dangerous.
Another inaccurate representation of atheism
is that most atheists claim to know, with absolute certainty,
that a supernatural being does not exist.
What this suggests is that, because an atheist disbelieves in God,
they are saying there is no doubts in their mind.
In 1952, renowned philosopher Bertrand Russell
devised a simplistic, yet profoundly important, analogy
to demonstrate that atheists are, in many respects,
simply highly skeptical agnostics.
That is to say we have no absolute certainty
that God, or a god, or other being does not exist,
but, for all intents and purposes, we assume he doesn't.
He wrote that, "Many orthodox people speak
as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas,
rather than that of dogmatists to prove them.
This is, of course, a mistake."
He, then, elaborates it
saying that, if he were to make the claim that a celestial teapot
so small it could not be detected by even the most powerful of microscopes
were in orbit around the sun,
then there would be absolutely no way
that this belief could be categorically refused as false,
as it is technically feasible.
This does not mean, however,
that any credence whatsoever should be given to his views.
To the contrary, Russell's teapot teaches us to be skeptical of claims
made without evidence.
He went on to say, several years later, "I ought to call myself an agnostic,
but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."
In this sense, all atheists are teapot agnostics.
In the same sense, we would have to be agnostic
about the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Zeus, Thor,
and any other mythological or theological being
that has been constructed by the human mind.
Obviously, though, it would not be rational to claim
that, since we cannot know for certain whether the celestial teapot exists,
we should remain agnostic towards its existence.
Religious arguments for a god's existence
have never met any burden of proof whatsoever.
In the same way, there's no proof for a celestial teapot.
Why then should rational individuals give such credence to groundless claims?
In short, I think they shouldn't.
Thus, while agnosticism may be well-intentioned,
I find it a rather pedantic approach to the questions of a theological nature.
This argument is the perfect example
of how fundamentally atheism is misunderstood.
I find the assertion that atheists hate God
both incredibly amusing and deeply disturbing.
Clearly, atheists do not hate a god because atheists do not believe in a god.
There's no way to hate something that you don't think exists.
It's the equivalent of asking whether one hates unicorns,
and that is entirely nonsensical.
There's something more pernicious implicit in this assertion, though,
and that is that atheists are not sincere in their disbelief.
In fact, it completely denies the existence of atheists
because we infer from it an entirely false understanding
that atheists do believe in God, but just dislike him.
Any atheist who says, in sincerity, they hate God is no atheist at all.
Though it may be asked, out of genuine ignorance and indoctrination,
questioning how one is moral without a god and a dogma,
it is truly absurd.
I think I speak for almost all atheists and, hopefully, almost all people
when I say that our moral codes should not be defined
by scriptures dating back thousands of years.
Now, I concede that excellent morals can be taught by the Bible, or the Koran,
or virtually any other religious text for that matter,
but I cannot ignore the fact that these same texts condone slavery,
rape, incest, misogyny, murder, homophobia,
and general malevolence, among other things.
Whilst I have no problem with people using proverbial religious passages
to elloquently explain moral theories, just as one might with poetry or fables,
I do object to those who argue that morality is rooted in religion.
Indeed, it does a disservice not only to atheists
in its assumption that we surely become raving savages without spiritual guidance,
but also a far greater disservice to religious people
because it suggests that a fear of the wrath of the celestial being
is the only thing stopping them from committing the most abhorrent of acts.
Now, in the same way that we can define our own moral codes,
most of us can derive our own understanding of the meaning of our lives.
While some atheists may be nihilists,
I would like to imagine that most of us aren't.
Similar to my objections to one's questioning of the moral code
without God in the equation,
I do not appreciate those who question
how an atheistic life can have meaning without God.
I don't strive to find an objective reason for our existence any time soon
because I don't believe this exists.
Rather, I think people should take the meaning they want out of life.
I think you would find very few atheists who would see any justice done
in banning the practice of religion globally.
In fact, it is entirely contrary to my beliefs
when it comes to my aspirations for a secularist society.
Those who want to experience a totalitarian state
which blocks such fundamental freedoms as religion and thought
should try spending a week in North Korea.
Rest assured, a world where freedom of speech is so impeded upon
is not one I or most atheists ever want to see.
Instead, we should be grateful that, in free societies like ours,
we have the freedom to debate such important issues
without fear of suppression.
As the banal and clichéd quote goes, "I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
All that atheists ask
is that they are offered the same commitment in return,
a right which I reiterate is denied in well over 20 countries to date.
One of the most pernicious modern claims made against atheists
is that, in our fight for secular society, we have somehow played the victim.
Indeed, I imagine many of you in this audience
feel that my speech is symptomatic of self-victimizing liberalism.
The flaw in this argument
is that, in its attempt to invalidate the concerns atheists feel,
it exposes the cruelty of dogmatic belief.
I may live in a very privileged society where my beliefs are not silenced,
but I reiterate that adherence to atheism is a criminal offense in 19 countries
of which 13 can punish atheists with death.
I personally may well be lucky enough to have received this platform,
but, in nine EU states, which many look to as beacon of liberalism and hope,
the voices of atheists must be tempered
for fear of violating archaic blasphemy laws.
I may be able to thrive in a relatively secular society,
but, in the year 2000,
75 countries, almost 40% of all countries, had state religions.
These examples may be anecdotal
and, indeed, many may feel that they are completely negligible,
but they are a testament
to institutionalized explicit discrimination against atheists
in all societies
and deep-rooted anti-atheistic prejudice.
It shows the same institutionalized explicit discrimination
against minority religious groups,
which is equally damnable.
This fact should not be concerning to atheists,
but all people who value basic freedoms and liberties.
Having addressed what atheists aren't,
I'd like to tackle the considerably harder question of what atheists are,
which I've narrowed down to three key traits
based on my personal understanding of the movement.
One thing often overlooked by religious people
is that atheism is an extremely diverse movement.
There is no formal hierarchy in atheism.
Indeed, there's no structure whatsoever.
This does present challenges in terms of mobilizing supporters,
but it also is indicative of a broader diversity in the movement.
Beyond the disbelief in God,
there's little that formally unites atheists.
Atheists come from all backgrounds and there is no "one size fits all."
Our diversity and lack of hierarchy also means
that we are far less susceptible to dogma.
Indeed, atheists are often challenging one another's opinions.
Whilst it may be disputed,
another key tenet of atheism, in my opinion,
is an empirical approach to life.
Atheists do not come to theological conclusions based on faith,
but logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
It stands to reason, then,
that atheists take a logical and empirical approach to our lives as a whole.
This does not mean that our lives are void of any creativity or imagination.
It simply means that we recognize the need to separate fact, theory and fantasy.
Finally and, in my opinion, most importantly,
almost all atheists are secularists.
That is to say they support the separation
of state and religious institutions in its entirety.
More than a want, it is a basic human right,
as affirmed by the United Nations,
that everyone is granted freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
It is paramount, therefore,
that, if such rights are to be truly and fairly granted,
we recognize that no just society can be formed
without the clear separation of religious organizations and state bodies.
I do not think one has to be an atheist
to have the same secularist aspirations as atheists.
I think all people, from all backgrounds, religious or not,
should embrace the secularist movement.
Indeed, I find there is a great deal of common ground
between atheists and the religious in this area.
When I first considered delivering this speech on this topic,
the greatest surprise to me was how many people counseled me
to avoid talking on atheism altogether,
and the number of people
who seemed weary of any discussion on the topic whatsoever.
To say that theological discussions are a taboo in modern society
is an understatement.
It is in discussion about topics like these
that we so often fail to recognize the distinction
between an expectation that we would be treated fairly
and a purported right to be respected.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with the former, expectation,
there is something deeply perverted about the demands of the latter.
We have seen what comes of nations
who silence and stifle the voices of activists
whose views may well differ from the majority opinion.
It is my belief that the right to freedom of speech
is the right to be disrespectful.
That is not to say that people should be purposely hostile or vitriolic,
but that people should be honest about their views.
Suppression of them, after all,
means aspirations for consensus can never be actualized.
I make this point quite elaborately because what I've been discussing today
most certainly caused some listening to take offense,
either to the ideas that I've expressed or the way that I expressed them.
And whilst you're entitled to take your offense,
others are well within their rights to cause it.
The reason I may seem so disrespectful towards religion
is because I personally find most of what it teaches and espouses intolerable.
In my eyes, the only way to combat ignorance and intolerance
is to have frank and open discussions.
They may be awkward or upsetting, but they need to be had nonetheless.
If today has shown us anything,
it's that we need to be willing to step outside our comfort zones
in order to tackle constantly arising global challenges.
That's why my aim today was not to preach to the choir,
nor was it to convert for religious.
Instead, I aim to create a discussion and get people thinking
about a very simple, very ellegant, ungodly notion.
Thank you.
(Applause)