An Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris

An Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris Sam Harris argues against irrational faith and its adherents Originally posted in Truthdig.


The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?



It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.


We live in a world of unimaginable surprises--from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this lights dancing for eons upon the Earth--and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.








The Nature of Belief






Faith and the Good Society





Religion as a Source of Violence




Why is religion such a potent source of human violence?



  • Religious faith is a conversation-stopper. Religion is only area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will die for, and--all too often--what they will kill for. This is a problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple choice between conversation and violence. Only a fundamental willingness to be reasonable--to have our beliefs about the world revised by new evidence and new arguments--can guarantee that we will keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. While there is no guarantee that rational people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by their dogmas.



The idea that the value of

The idea that the value of human life is equal to a chemical process, or in some words is meaningless, in accordance to the evolutionary model is not an invalid perspective for an atheist, but it is a highly unlikely one for any human being, theist or atheist.

Not everyone needs to believe in god to assign value to life, or to give life meaning, which I think is what you are really getting at.  People have the intrinsic freedom to value human life and give it meaning based upon any and every mode of rationality, reason, belief, or experience available to them in life.  However, to quantify atheism as a religion in terms of following the evolutionary model in the same way that Christianity or Islam would follow the bible or the koran would be very incorrect and unobservant.  Atheism is only the disbelief of a god or gods.  There is no code or set of rules that an atheist or anti-theist subscribes to by embracing said labels.  You are simply observing a trend that many atheists and anti-theists embrace the evolutionary model as a truth as the theory is based upon scientific observation.  Darwin noticed a trend too, in nature.

That said, to assign life meaning based upon the doctrine of any religion, be it Christian, Mormon, Islam, Hindu, whatever is simply a choice based more upon geography than anything else.  Anyone can choose to identify with and indoctrinate themself into any set of beliefs and practices; however, what makes one set of beliefs, one religion, true over another.  Does one "feel" more right?  If that is the case, you are simply relying upon intuition which is guided by your personal development in whatever society and culture you were born into.  In other words, that is environment, the choice of religion boils down to geography.  At least, that is the way one might rationalize the choice of religion, which is what being an athiest or anti-theist is about.

One last point to make before I hit the hay.  An atheist or anti-theist doesn't pretend to have the answers about much of life, the universe, the human conscious, but they absolute do not wish to delude themselves either.  Life is utterly confusing, ridiculously complex, and ultimately a struggle, and the only thing that makes sense is to try to reason your way through it all, that's a personal motto.

Fallacy of Inheritance

Jason Cardwell wrote:

If I believed that a little girl were a random accumulation of chemicals and chemical processes, I would not believe that anything that happened to her (or myself, for that matter) had any inherent significance (though it would certainly have significance for certain people, the victim included...this is not the same thing as having inherent significance.

To my thinking, it's the notion of inherent significance that's to blame here.  Forget about it!  There is no inherent significance, and yet we get by marvelously.  How?  By being the creators of significance!  What does the word itself mean really?  It means to pick out through signification?  And what is signification but the application of signs?  And who makes these signs?  US!  We decide by habit, teachings and logic what is significant in our lives.  That's just how it works.  That's why education is important, it is the imparting of symbols and significance, allowing our minds to take on new forms at the most influential times.  To verify these claims through common sense is a trivial task, and yet still we feel the need for some inherent significance, some realm of pure truth, which by its very nature (an impossible one) must be held ontologically seperate!  I understand the lure of such a realm, but it must surely be revealed as fantasy.

Once you abandon the notion of an inherent significance to events, you are freed to determine their significance in the very way you've been doing it all along, by having a human brain.  So how can we be atheists and still declare events to have weight and significance, even unto the tragic?  Simple, by being what we are.  There simply is no point in denying it.


It seems that none of you "atheists" really agree on much of anything, and you have a great way of trying to make anyone who disagrees with any of your disagreeing thoughts out to be some stupid moron.  If you believe in the theory of evolution, then by definition you are "people of faith" just a different direction of faith than the "creationists."  If you believe in a code of ethics and morals then you are "people of faith" because you 'believe' in something.  Where does a complete unbelief break down?  Oh, so you don't believe in a higher power, or in a 'god.'  Thats your right, you can believe whatever you want, but that does not make everyone who does not agree with you an ignorant, uneducated, non-thinking moron.  You believe one way, others believe another way.  Some just have enough "guts" to spread their beleifs everywhere they go.

Am I missing something?

Let me get this straight... since we believe in evolution we have no concept of what constitutes an atrocity? So if we are descendants of apes then all we can do is just act like apes with no concept of right and wrong?

That may be your take on it and it defies logic. If you can't be responsible for your own sense of right and wrong then you are indeed misinformed and brainwashed. I feel sorry for you. When you opened by saying you watched Fox news I automatically downgraded your IQ.

I am having a very hard time respecting your view after you come up with that load of crap. I can tell already that even in the 21st century we still have warped thinking like that to deal with.

Perhaps if i was a believer then I would accept that child abuse is part of the path to God? Or some kind of "God works in mysterious ways" b.s.?

I am not missing anything. People such as yourself help provide the clarity.


butterbattle's picture

Okay, I'll waste some

Okay, I'll waste some time.

common sense wrote:


Why should we agree on everything?

An atheist is simply a person that doesn't believe in God. Two people that don't believe in God, but disagree on everything else, will still both be atheists. 


We're defining "faith" as belief without evidence. I accept evolution because I believe it is supported by the evidence. Ergo, I do not have faith in evolution.


You're using a different definition of the word. You're implying that faith is synonymous with belief; I define it as consciously believing without evidence.


I agree. There are intelligent, educated, and thoughtful people with all kinds of different beliefs.


Fact-based Atheist Manifesto


A Fact-Based Atheist Manifesto would look quite different from Sam Harris' version. Refusing to "pretend to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable," it would not claim that either science or reason supported the atheist position . It would acknowledge that religious commitment is associated with greater mental and physical health as well as with greater life satisfaction. It would recognize that "The Horrors of History" such as slavery tended to be promoted by worldly "progressive" men and opposed by those unusually involved in their religion.  It would not claim that the existence of suffering logically refutes the existence of God. And realistic atheists who wished to do something about the ills of the world or the country (such as grotesquely unequal salaries) would try to enlist Christians as allies rather than falsely blaming them.DrewAtheists and Christians


BobSpence's picture

Drew S wrote: A Fact-Based

Drew S wrote:




Every child born with serious defects, which is around 1 to 2% of life births, is an strike against the proposition that there is a 'loving' God with absolute power and control over reality.

The failure of the Bible to condemn slavery, rape and torture is an indictment against the 'morality' of that document. Those religious people who opposed slavery transcended the dogmas of their religion - especially in earlier times when there were more mysteries that reason could not explain, and atheism was more violently opposed, most people simply followed the conventions of the society. Those who had more empathy, and were not troubled by any compulsion to agonize over the rationality of belief, would naturally be drawn to the more compassionate traditions of religion.

Especially within nations with high levels of poverty, belief may well offset some of the stress that imposes. However surveys also show that nations with more secular cultures tend to have higher levels of mental and physical health.

The growing complexity of our society demands we base our actions on reason and evidence, and religious dogma violates both those principles, endorsing the idea that actions do not need rational justification if they can be supported by some quote from scripture.







replies needed

why an atheist manifesto? why not an agnostic manifesto? i understand that all theism is human nature and does not stand for any inherent truth, but what makes you so certain of theistic truth? i admire your goals and ends but i think it might come off as a little offensive to most at first glance to see rationalism pre-labelled "atheist." to believe in the opposite or even lack thereof of something is to believe in that something--at least as a base or perhaps even a core. i don't espouse either, but i believe 'agnostic' rather than 'atheist' to be a more appropriate label for a rationalist manifesto.


please reply, i am very curious to see the atheist position defended in this light.

The Physical Reality

The two options for reality are: The Physical Reality and the metaphysical reality or the reality defined by matter and that one defined by "spiriual things" or something like that. The Physical Reality is where matter has existence and metaphysical reality is where no material things exists, thing like spirits, ideas, angels, gods, souls, devils, demons, deaths and all that sort of things that aren't matter and can't be commanded at will but appear random according to witnesses. 

According to Plato the perfect reality was the metaphysical reality because over there the non material things were absolutely perfect unlike the material things that always lack perfection. He was so drunken with this idea that  he invented a supreme being, the creator of everything that wasn't created because it was "the necessary being."  This es evidently BS, why the logic is fouled just to accommodate his idea; logically we don't  need such an entity, we can by pass it  with an even logical argument and say: the universe is eternal and infinite and so doesn't need a creator and this is more valid that Plato's assertion.  So, there is no metaphysical reality only Physical Reality, the ideas after all are created my matter inside our brain as force vectors from electric field and the so called metaphysical events are just abstract products of the matter inside the brain. the metaphysical reality doesn't exist.

An eternal and infinite Universe that has always existed that have not begining and won't have end is the perfect solution, but it isn't our universe, this a is only one among an infinite number of them in all states of evolution from Big Bang to Big Crunch (disappear ), the energy is recycled and this process is endless.

What about life on earth? That isn't a mistery life is just a physical-chemical process at nano level that doens't need a creator of the universe to start, it happens once the right environmental physical-chemistry conditions are achieved in any place across and along the eternal and infinite Universe. Evolution is a process that occurs all over the Universe as Richard Feymann proves, with his Electrodynamics Science he demostrates that photons or Quantas of energy are the raw material to produce fundamental parrticles that evolve into elemental particles and this into atoms along with a lot of other particles in each step of the process,

The myth of god and its metaphysical reality is over. No body needs a god IF no children is poisoned with such a lie since is in the womb. In the extinct USSR the god concept was vanished from the social environment and no adult ever asked for it.


Problem of Suffering; evidence and reason; miss religion?


I. Birth defects prove there is no God—The "Problem of Suffering" is addressed on my website .Go to   Common Objections To Christianity and then to Does suffering disprove Christianity?   Briefly:The argument that the existence of suffering precludes the existence of God is not a logical argument at all but rather an emotional one. It rests upon the proposition that, if we knew infinitely more than we do now and could handle information infinitely more complex than we can at present, we would still see things exactly the same way.  That might not be true, because psychological research indicates that we do not do well with complex information. As Biologist J. B. S. Haldane put it, "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." It should not be surprising that we cannot understand the ways of the Creator of that universe. In any case, replying "I don't know" to the problem of suffering is no more devastating for Christians than it is devastating to an atheist to reply "I don't know" when asked to explain the origin of some natural phenomenon, or of the universe itself. The Biblical answer to the question "why do people suffer?" is this: "We don't know,       but what can we do to help?” [See Job; Luke 13:1-5; John 9:2-3]   What Christianity teaches about suffering is basically five things:·         Help those who suffer.·         We encounter Christ Himself when we encounter those in need.·         Don't inflict suffering on other people.·         Don't blame the victims of suffering.·         Evil and death will not triumph in the end.The Christian viewpoint provides some comfort for those suffering, and some reason for others to try to help them. I haven't seen any evidence that people suffer less or help more if this view is abandoned. Are Christians more likely to help those in need? Some data suggest they might be, and that within a congregation those who are the most involved give more.Norazayan, A. & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The origin and evolution of religiousprosociality.   Science, 322, 58-62.Spilka, B., .Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B., &Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology of religion, an empirical approach. Guilford, New York. p 429. II. Must rely solely on empirical evidence and reason—You can't. See above website, subsections:It's not an act of intellectual courage to pretend that you're relying solely on evidence and logic when you are not, and you choose less wisely when you don't realize when you go beyond them.III. In the old USSR, no one adult ever missed faith…. Say what? People died for their faith, endured stunted careers for their faith, and once the USSR crumbled huge numbers of people began going to church. Also, those with no religious involvement are more likely than church goers to believe in ghosts, flying saucers, Big Feet, and any number of similar things (Gallop Poll, October 8, 2008, I think). Sounds like they may be missing something, even if they don't know what it is.


About Israel. Why are you

About Israel. Why are you going to politicize your view? Who cares about Israel's belief that God gave them that land.  If we're going to talk politics, then it is the Islamic Fascists who are the cause of the problem, their untethered hate for the Jews--a historical hate.  No atheist will earn my respect when he or she is so ignorant.  If atheists look at what is obvious there should be no problem seeing who the aggressor is in that part of the world. I am agnostic, having all the views of the atheist, but with reservations, and a questioning mind.  Not about the god of the Bible.  He never existed.  I mean about other mysteries, like that of the universe and of what-or-who creator.

Vastet's picture

""I. Birth defects prove


Fail. The subjective view of some god is irrelevant to the subjective view of a human, or groups of humans. If it's bad for me, then it's bad. It doesn't matter at all if someone or something else finds it good, it remains bad for me. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Kirkaiya's picture

Jason Cardwell wrote:...I

Jason Cardwell wrote:
...I certainly believe that such an event would be an atrocity, but I believe that because I believe any little girl is created by God in His image and has been imbued by Him with value and significance. If I believed that a little girl were a random accumulation of chemicals and chemical processes, I would not believe that anything that happened to her (or myself, for that matter) had any inherent significance (though it would certainly have significance for certain people, the victim included...this is not the same thing as having inherent significance)


Responding to just your quote above (from 2007), and especially to the bolded part - I would ask you to consider a couple of questions.

First - if later in life, you lost your religion (however unlikely you think that is), do you think you would stop viewing the torture and rape of an innocent child as an atrocity? Do you think that the hundreds of millions of Buddhists who right now don't believe in any "creator deity" don't love their children, and would not be horrified by such torture and killing of a child? 

Second - do you really only feel (and I do mean "feel", in the visceral sense) that raping and killing an innocent child is wrong only because the child was created by a god - and if you had been raised Buddhist, or non-religious, do you honestly think you would view in such a detached manner?


I think the answer to both of the above is likely to be "no".  Morality does not spring from religion - if it did, then only the religious would have morals.  But look at Japan.  Japan is one of the least religious, most "athiest" societies on Earth, and yet has one of the lowest crime rates, and nearly the lowest rate of violent crime of any county.  Your daughters would be - statistically speaking - far safer living among the atheists of Japan than among the devout Christians in Los Angeles, or the devout Muslims in Cairo.

It seems, to me, that you believe morality flows from religious belief.  Most atheists probably believe the opposite is true:  that most religions have simply attempted to codify morals that already existed.  Bonobo monkeys (or any of the great apes) are clearly not Christian, or Muslim, or have anything we could call a religion.  And yet they clearly have moral codes that include helping the injured, and in which society exacts a punishment for attacking innocent young.  This is because intelligent species whose evolutionary advantage is largely that they cooperate in groups (such as monkeys, humans, and dolphines) have evolved traits like empathy, and taboos, like the killing of young members of the society.  I am atheist, and I absolutely think that the torture or killing of a child is an atrocity.  I don't require the idea of a god, or any other imaginary source of moral guidance, for me to know that it's wrong.  And neither, I strongly suspect, do you.

~~ ô¿ô ~~
~~ Roaming the Real World ~~

Jason Cardwell wrote:Here at

Jason Cardwell wrote:

Here at the beginning of the essay, we have the abduction, rape, torture and murder of a little girl described as an "atrocity." I wonder, however, what can be the atheistic basis for such a judgment..

My personal opinion is that morality, right and wrong, are defined by society, not any god.


I'm not sure but I don't think the bible actually says rape is a sin, or wrong, but my society does.

That is why not all societies have the same exact morals, or rules. Seems rather obvious to me.

Vastet's picture

I'd go further and say

I'd go further and say morality comes from individuals. Societies adopt those morals which the vast majority agree with. But everyone has morals that others don't, so not every moral that humanity has ever created has been adopted by society. Some morals swing with generations. Many people who have been branded as sociopaths are merely people who have a different set of morals than those that the vast majority have at the time. They would probably have been well suited to the environment if they'd been born in a different century.

There's also the us and them dilemma. As long as you can remove a group of people from being us, your morality no longer works. I find it amusing when I hear someone say he or she'd love to nuke the middle east. You'd never hear them suggest nuking their home town. But it's effectively the same thing. Everyone over there is not so different from everyone over here. There are differences, but there's more similarities.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

jasons brain

now that we know you rely on the scriptures we can be sure that yes, your brain is missing, at least some part of it. If you believe the ridiculous you must expect ridicule ronald