How to Live in Accordance with Your Atheistic Belief
Atheists are often viewed as a more self-righteous community of people. It is unfortunate because the adoption of atheistic belief is frequently driven by the desire to be the opposite of many things including judgmental and self-righteous. Sometimes in the quest to gain and share knowledge we can develop an air of arrogance. This is not exclusive to the atheist community but in this article I will offer a perspective, which is in accordance with the core concept of atheist belief, that I believe would be beneficial for all atheists to consider rather than the arrogant and narrow-minded one they have become known for which can contradict and undermine the atheist view entirely. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ will be used as a blanket term to apply to all judgments that humans make against other cultures, communities or individuals and not necessarily in the strict morality or legal sense of the words.
We will tackle this topic by deconstructing the basic concept of differing perspectives, comparing the core ideologies of atheism and theism based on this concept, and using this understanding to define a perspective for atheists that does not contradict the core of atheistic belief.
The Basic Idea of Perspective
A professor hands a few students in a Psychology class one piece each of a puzzle. One by one, based only on their individual puzzle piece, they voice what they think the ‘big picture’ might be. They are told to observe how their own first impression or perspective will change as they hear how others comprehend their pieces of the puzzle. Answers like “I don’t know” are applauded. This is life and this is how we form our ideas and beliefs, creating our perspective of the world around us. The class agrees that some of them might have a good idea of what the ‘big picture’ is based on their pieces of the puzzle but none of them can be 100% sure.
The students are then asked to assemble the puzzle. Suddenly, with all pieces or perspectives assembled the ‘big picture’ becomes much clearer, even shedding light on the meaning of their own pieces. Next the professor asks that everyone who was even a little bit wrong about the ‘big picture’ raise their hand and remove their piece. They are ‘wrong’ (what an awful terrible thing to be!) and their perspectives have no place with the others. The ‘big picture’ immediately becomes less clear as important information is removed that was useful to everyone’s perspective of both the ‘big picture’ and their own piece. This is what we do to the ‘idiots’ of our society. We regularly dismiss the entire perspective of a person who may hold one differing idea that we simply do not understand or refuse to accept. Our pieces of the puzzle are, however, important and we are unable to grasp the ‘big picture’ that we seek to understand without readily seeking the perspectives of others.
Classifying Atheism and Theism
Following our convenient puzzle metaphor, the sole difference between atheism and theism is that of the existence of a witness to the ‘big picture’. In our class, the students had an opportunity that we never receive in real life. They were able to assemble the pieces, see how it all fit together thus developing a definitive answer. They were consequently able to label the perspective of each student as either right or wrong.
Simply, a theist believes that there is one or many who can see the ‘big picture’ and who then knows, without a doubt, who is right and wrong in their perspectives, actions, choices or any other respect. Most theists would believe confidently that this omniscient one holds the same idea of right and wrong as they do.
The atheist belief would hold that there is no witness to the right and wrong, an assembled puzzle in an empty classroom. As the class was able to agree, while they might have had a great idea of the ‘big picture’ based on their own perspective, there was no possibility of being 100% correct.
The idea of right and wrong is a theist-minded concept. Now, let us define atheism for ourselves as the belief that there is no one judge who knows definitively the nature of right and wrong.
Attempting to Live in Accordance with Your Atheist Belief
Dispose of your notion of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
According to the nature of atheistic belief, omniscience does not exist. An atheist should seek to understand that there is no universal right or wrong. Subsequently, their definition of it could never be accepted, even by themselves, as the correct one above all others.
Accept that your perspective is one of many flawed ones
Anyone with a perspective on the world around them is capable of being right and equally wrong. The lack of a judge in atheist belief ought to negate all arguments for a practicing atheist. The need to be right has proven dangerous in the past; murder, war and genocide are things we’ve grown accustomed to in the quest to prove oneself correct.
Entertain as many perspectives as possible
Now that you have fully accepted your perspective as both undeniably flawed and in need of more information, you have an opportunity to engage in the open and understanding exchange of information and ideas. Learn! Entertain the perspectives of others as a means to better understand and fine tune your own. We are all solely out to understand the universe we have found ourselves in. The more we learn about how others perceive the ‘big picture’ the closer we come to answers we can confidently call our own.
Think I’m wrong? Awesome. Thank you so much for reading and understanding my perspective anyway.
Namaste.




Clovers said on 03.01.2013
I think this is great advice. But I don’t think you can follow it and truly be an atheist. I think if you follow this advice, you’re categorically an agnostic. And that’s why I’m an agnostic. Atheists deal in absolutes.
Beni said on 03.02.2013
Im glad this was the first response. It’s a great point and a logical conclusion to take away from the article. Thanks for reading!
madgegod said on 03.05.2013
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Aside from the rare theistic agnosticism, most agnostics are also atheists. You can be “not sure” and an atheist (In fact, this is probably true of most atheists).
Harry Mac said on 03.08.2013
Agreed Clovers, because surely the atheists have also made an absolutist judgement call based on their own coagulated puzzle?
Therefore my perspective is that this logic would work for an agnostic, not an atheist.
Ali jan said on 03.09.2013
I agree with clovers I think the article by definitions describes agnostic having said that I think that the article is pretty much spot on when it comes identifying the difference between a theist and an agnostic… being a theist my self I feel the faith is about bearing witness that some being has the absolute right “big picture” but even as a theist I feel that passing moral judgement on others is wrong.
As a human being you can judge the other person, you can not say if someone is good or evil. As for Laws and punishment I feel there presence is simply for improving human lives.
Gandalf said on 03.14.2013
I’ve talked to a lot of people about atheism and agnosticism. Most of them would not define themselves as an atheist because of the, as the author of this post put it, judgmental and self-righteous stigma that surrounds it. They would instead define themselves as being agnostic. Although most people understand this stance on life, I do believe that both terms need a bit more explanation to fully understand their meaning.
Agnosticism is a point of view regarding KNOWLEDGE. You could be agnostic about almost anything. Although it’s more commonly applied to statements about the universe and religion.
Atheism is a point of view regarding FAITH. For example, when you say that you are an atheist, you’re simply stating that you do not believe in a deity.
So, taking these definitions into account, you would belong to the agnostic atheist category. As do most people, except that they don’t know that they do :)
But that aside, I think that the author makes a very valid point. Although I don’t think that these principles are only applicable to atheists, I think that they should be applicable to everyone. The example with the professor and the puzzle are perfect in this case, only together we can finish the puzzle. Not judging the puzzle before it’s completed.
Living Stone said on 03.01.2013
Great post. It’s crazy how attached we become to our perspectives on life, not realising that the person next to us has a whole completely different viewpoint on life and that the fact that you’re next to them makes up life as it is.
Beni said on 03.02.2013
Right? It’s so clear and undeniable that we all differ in mind, body and soul. I wish this had been a kindergarten lesson. Thanks for reading :)
Arun said on 03.02.2013
I think generally the term atheist is often misunderstood as someone who “believes” that God doesn’t exist. Ofcourse there might be some hard-liners out there, but most people would fall under the category of “non believers” as a result of being unsure of anything, however as in my case they are mostly under the impression that God is more unlikely to exist because of logical and scientific reasons. However, I agree that even our current knowledge of everything cannot give us a precise idea of reality and therefore I like to consider myself as an agnostic atheist (agnostic but inclined towards absolute atheism).
Beni said on 03.02.2013
Thank you for your insight on the nuances of defining these beliefs or non-beliefs. It’s a shame we’re so dedicated to finding the word or label to represent ourselves, the guy next to us could be using the same label with his own definition.
Terence Stone said on 03.02.2013
Thought-provoking. Thank you. I think Atheism like institutionalized religion just follows another strict set of dogma. It may not be as elaborate as that of religion, but the fact is that Atheism is the institutionalized belief that a higher presence does not exist. Dealing in absolutes limits an individual’s universe. After all, that is what it’s about: Finding meaning (or lack thereof) in your own existence. No one else can do that for you. That’s why the Buddha told his followers not to blindly follow any person or teaching but to test many and see what works for the individual. And also why Jesus’ ultimate message was that above all else we should love one another, and approach life from that perspective. Neither of them said “go start an institution that rigidifies my teachings and forces it upon others.” Their messages are simple: Be present. Think for yourself. And Love each other. The rest is up to us.
Thanks for the food for thought.
-u.s.-
http://urbanspiritual.wordpress.com/
Jack said on 03.02.2013
Yes! I couldn’t agree more. I personally don’t believe in a god, but I am hesitant to use the label “atheist” to describe myself, simply because it usually implies a rejection of all other views. Unfortunately, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris (or the “New Atheists”) really have given us agnostics and atheists a bad name in blindly adhering to their perspective and shutting out all others. And the sad thing is, I see my atheist friends agreeing with them, condescendingly attacking theists. Its as if the Modern/Enlightenment belief that reason can find THE truth still sadly exists.
ishetat said on 03.06.2013
That to me is a big downside, they are essentially our extremists, giving the rest of us a bad (more objectionable) name.
Besides, what is the purpose of standing up to Bible Bashers if all you re going to do is bash right back.
I do agree with open discussions though, I really do embrace them when they come along.
For me personally I think people today have this overbearing urge to share their opinion; even if you did not ask to hear it; as being the only legitimate option (and not only in Religious terms).
IJC said on 03.03.2013
There are no atheists.
Beni said on 03.04.2013
Everyone gets to define it differently. How do you define an atheist that they wouldn’t exist?
Anonymous Tor User said on 03.09.2013
@beni
No, you don’t get to define it differently. That just makes everything an incoherent mess.
Anonymous Tor User said on 03.09.2013
@ijesuschrist
Yes there are. An atheist is someone who does not believe that god(s) exist. You may have a hard time coming to the conclusion that people sincerely believe that, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
justin said on 03.04.2013
I really really disagree with the universal right or wrong, and the reasoning you used to get there. Just because there is no omniscience, whether it be attainable by man or not, does not necessarily mean we can throw away the concept of a universal right and wrong. To do that is to open the door to moral relativism, which is appealing but impossible to build society and relationship on.
Beni said on 03.04.2013
I’m sure, however, that you might agree that the perspective of moral relativism has it’s own place in helping us understand the reasons and methods our society uses to define and instill right and wrong within us. I’ve never heard the idea that the spread of moral relativism would be a negative thing. I’d love to hear specific ways you think it would be so. Do you only mean on a large scale?
Bearacleitus said on 03.04.2013
It has it’s place as one of those things that don’t make sense enough to be practical. Moral relativism says that what is deemed right and wrong or good and bad is dependent on the person affirming the claim. The reason why it doesn’t work is because if everyone can determine what’s right and what’s wrong, then no one’s answer matters because we can all just change our answers. The whole idea of right and wrong or good and bad is that you have a universal standard by which you can judge things as being r/w/g/b. If there isn’t a standard, (which there is by the way found within natural law) then you can’t have any discussion about r/w/g/b since there isn’t anything validating the judgement. I’m sure you’ve come across things like people getting bullied, hurt, robbed, made fun of, or anything else you would call unjust or wrong or bad. How do you make that judgement? Whether you can articulate it or not, I’m sure it had something to do with this idea of right and wrong you had and I’m sure it didn’t apply to just you. I’m sure you mean well but imagine everyone having their own scientific method. Which one do you follow? Which one is more or most accurate? Which one actually works? And before you ask any of these questions, how can you validate any of the answers without knowing how to tell what’s right and what’s wrong? Morality works the same way.
Alex Eastman said on 03.04.2013
Ever since I was ten I have been piecing together all the puzzle pieces I could from different religions and philosophies, and threw in a few of my own that I thought fit. I have come up with a pretty clear picture of what I believe in because I openly accepted ideals and tried my best to get them to fit. Not saying I have the right pieces, but hey, it works for me :)
I just wish other people would be accepting of other people’s ideals more, since you are never 100% correct, let alone on something this obscure and unknowable. If only.
Ruby said on 03.05.2013
Very inspired and clever article. I love this. By the same kind of logic I am absolutely positively certain of the existence of God. But I respect every opinion and I don’t think that ultimately opinion matters anyway :)
tumamaloca said on 03.05.2013
Damn,someone hew understans athiests.I am an athiest and I always have been.People have tryed to change me and trust me,its not a good fealing.
tumamaloca said on 03.05.2013
Damn,someone hew understans athiests.I am an athiest and I always have been.People have tryed to change me.trust me,its not a good fealing.
Maxwell B said on 03.06.2013
“The need to be right has proven dangerous in the past; murder, war and genocide are things we’ve grown accustomed to in the quest to prove oneself correct.”
Yes this is true, but it is also true of today as well. Nothing has changed much. Our hierarchical structures are still dominated by people of faith, not people of open deductive reasoning. I think our government is actually based upon the idea that common people NEED to instil FAITH in politicians. Common people need to trust that politicians are making right and wrong judgements for them.
Of course this is hogwash if you take this article to heart since there is no right and wrong. I work with several devout Christians and and the stranglehold ‘right and wrong’ has on those people is pathological. You cant REASON with somebody who thinks they are right and you are wrong. I have tried to have countless open conversations with christians, but their faith consumes their entire life and therefor, our conversation. Nothing goes into a Christians head with out first passing through their bible tinted glasses.
What concerns me most is the way traditional mindsets and viewpoints on right and wrong will play themselves out after financial collapse. When our financial system crashes there are going to be a lot of individuals out there thinking they have the answer for everybody. thats a problem. People will gladly start killing over what they ‘know’ is right. That fact is a true testament to how corrupt their thinking and right and wrong itself actually is. Financial collapse better be a period of acceptance and comming together; not a time of perpetual bracketing of populations. If the goal is global peace and sustainability there is no room for right and wrong and therefor, no room for traditional faith.
Its surprising you havnt gotten a HE Christian on this post preaching how you need right and wrong and how life isnt lived well unless you follow ‘the path’.
Thomas said on 03.06.2013
You lost me when you made the claim that “Most theists would believe confidently that this omniscient one holds the same idea of right and wrong as they do.” I am a theist and I certainly have never claimed this and neither has anybody I know in my community. The astounding thing about it is the amount of issues of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that theists don’t claim to have an answer for and thus leave it up to the omniscient being, because it is beyond human comprehension.
The knowledge problem of the puzzle remains as much of a mystery to theists as it does for atheists. Theists just accept that there is an objective, omniscient understanding of it all and accept that our human capacity is limited in comprehending it.
MPHill said on 03.08.2013
Just don’t fall susceptible to bigotry. Like you say in so many words, you will become what you hate about the religion. I am conflicted because I personally Hate everything organized religion stands for. But enough to dismantle the establishment? No! Because then I would become just as bad as the parts about organized religion.I let people down with rhetorical statements and such, but I’m tactful and playful about it unless there is some obviously harmful something or another happening.
David said on 03.08.2013
I really liked this post, perspectivism is awesome! However, I think the classification of theism is way too narrow and the exhortation to dispose of notions of right and wrong is ill advised.
I wrote a response to these two issues on my blog:
http://www.sdbart.com/2013/03/philosophy.html#.UTo3cVGgh2M
LynzieWho said on 03.09.2013
I love this article, thank you so much for sharing. I used to consider myself wholly atheist, and now consider myself more or less undecided, somewhere between atheism, agnosticism, and most of all, naturalistic pantheism. I feel no need to choose just one, as there are parts of almost all philosophies and tolerance-based religions that speak to me. Thank you for giving your perspective on atheism, as I feel it’s largely misconstrued by theists.
Anonymous Tor User said on 03.09.2013
“The idea of right and wrong is a theist-minded concept. Now, let us define atheism for ourselves as the belief that there is no one judge who knows definitively the nature of right and wrong.”
2+2 = 5
Regardless of whether or not there is a god, the concepts of right and wrong can be coherently established. Maybe you are talking about morality, for which I’ll agree with you, but in general, right and wrong does exist.
Also, you are completely redefining atheism unnecessarily.
Djordan said on 03.10.2013
Atheism is very simple and only specifies one aspect of the universe – the existence of god(s). Done. Universal or relative moral inquiries are merely what spawn from that stance. When it comes down to it, every single person on this planet is philosophically an agnostic about that aspect. I have never met an atheist who claimed to be 100% certain of god(s)’ non-existence. They may exist, but I have yet to meet them. Atheists understand the 99.9% claim, touching base upon the very core of where our complaints lie, that certainty on faith (religious or not) is corrupting. I am agnostic as to the existence of many supernatural creatures, but there is no use in pretending I do not live my life as if they were never there. It’s practical. As an atheist I do not believe in a god (a being others have claimed to exist to which I’ve rejected). This is different from saying “as an atheist I know god does not exist (a claim obviously struggling to ‘resolve’ null hypothesis.)
Also, I do not know what the whole puzzle will look like, using your analogy, but I can be sure of one thing – there are pieces we can know for certain to not make sense in context of the puzzle. Theism, mostly organized, has the certainty of what the big picture is. Atheism, however, is not a claim of the opposite certainty, but wiping the slate clean. There’s a reason why “scientism” and “materialism” are poised as negative attributes of atheist demeanor – if everything has been wiped clean, then claims to our observable, natural, material world will be scrutinized scientifically. This is a method to seriously tackle natural truths and moral truths.
I’m an atheist. I do not believe in the supernatural being other humans have claimed to exist. Whether I am a universal moralist or relative moralist, spiritual or not spiritual, dogmatic or critical all depends on the person because atheists are scattered across those spectrums. It just so happens that taking time to sort out the “puzzle pieces” is conducive to critical thinking and skepticism of unwarranted claims.
Maritza said on 03.18.2013
I`m stupid and religious
Alex Baughman said on 05.12.2013
If it helps, it’s not stupid.
Alex Baughman said on 05.12.2013
Ahh, this is very interesting. I just had a very long discussion with an atheist about this very subject. I was trying to convince this person of exactly the message of this article. I simplified it to this:
atheist: “I don’t know, therefore no god. I know this to be fact.”
theist: “I don’t know, therefore God, and I know this to be fact.”
My point was that both are ignorant, close minded, and arrogant. Atheists just as much as theists.
There exists laws that create form and patterns out of chaos. This is scientifically true. This is the atheist explanation for why the universe has pattern and form. Not god, laws of nature.
So there exists a force that uses natural processes to create form, patterns, and even life from what is essentially chaos? Holy shit! How is that not God?
Perhaps God and Nature are so intrinsically related as to be the same exact thing, that it’s not a matter of theism or atheism. It’s a matter of what name you assign to the Forces of Nature that turn chaos into form and pattern and life.
You call it science, nature, physics; this is all true. He calls it God? Just as true.
FeelScknd said on 05.20.2013
atheist: “I don’t know, therefore no god. I know this to be fact.”
theist: “I don’t know, therefore God, and I know this to be fact.”
Agreed these are both invalid reasoning. Yet an atheist would state
“I don’t know. Therefore I don’t know.”
Tautological, but nothing else can be gleaned from a single premise.
The atheist believes the evidence for god(s) is insufficient. He doesn’t rule out the possibility of a deity, but follows Occam’s Razor and finds simpler explanations in cases of proof of god. Therefore he is de facto a non believer. We all are non believers by default in anything and everything that’s claimed to exist until we believe the burden of proof has been met. No faith required.
The existence of an actual force that brings order out of chaos is still contentious. The fact that order exists among far more chaos is not. Even if we were to allow, for the sake of argument, the assumption that there is a collective force behind this order or design, it still lacks key attributes of what most people think of when we speak of god (Abrahamic): sentience, omniscience, omnipotence, perhaps even omnipresence… not to mention a teleology (read purpose or intent) behind its workings.
This is how it’s not god. No more than “a smooth skinned aquatic flippered mammal with a blowhole” is definitive enough to allow someone to use “whale” and “dolphin” interchangeably. There’s more to consider.
And yes, as others above have mentioned… a lack of an omniscient being or the very possibly of omniscience does not preclude an objective reality nor does it mean we must bend a knee to moral relativism. Right and wrong may be circumstantial, absolute, or even fictional. All these independent of the existence of a cosmic judge to determine or observe it for us.
All the same. I like this article and took interest in reading it at a time when I’ve been needing to relax the morality taskmaster in my head and have stumbled over several other articles advocating an “only growth and understanding, no definite right or wrong” worldview.
Someone get Carl Jung on the phone… or U2
FeelScknd said on 05.20.2013
I suppose it warrants mentioning that “faith” as it’s used in the spiritual/religious sense has been best defined as not only believing in something without evidence, but believing in something DESPITE the sum of evidence. Willful ignorance.
I may only be contributing to the beginnings of a mental orgy or mutual mental masturbation here though so I should reel it in and say
Nice article!