Let’s start by taking a look at this image. It’s a world map from Wikipedia showing the religious beliefs of different countries in 2010, with the deeper purple indicating a lower proportion of religious believers in that country.

From the map, it’s clear that mainland China is the most purple, with over 50% of the population not adhering to any religion. Should we feel proud of that? It suggests that the proportion of people without religion in China is the highest, but can we flip it and say China has the highest number of atheists? Not really. That’s because a significant portion of these so-called atheists aren’t consciously atheist; strictly speaking, they’re not atheists at all. They simply haven’t encountered religion, never been proselytized, and haven’t given any thought to the existence of God. They’re still a blank slate, like animals or pets. If you asked them if they believe in God, they’d probably look at you like you’re crazy. So, can we call pets atheists?

True atheists are those who are consciously so, who have thoughtfully made that decision. Atheism has existed for thousands of years, but not all atheists are the same. They all share one belief: God doesn’t exist. However, the reasoning behind that conclusion can vary. So, let’s break atheism down into a few categories.

The first type is empirical or intuitive atheism, where people, based on life experiences, feel that God doesn’t exist. For example, someone might say, “I’ve never encountered God, never had a divine revelation, and have never seen any supernatural phenomena, so I don’t believe in God.” Have you read Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude? There’s a character who does something like this: he gets a camera, takes photos all around him, develops the film, and finds no evidence of God, so he concludes that God doesn’t exist. But this process is pretty crude. A regular camera captures what the human eye can see, and if God isn’t visible to our eyes, a camera won’t help. Such a proof is hardly convincing. Maybe God’s just hiding behind a corner somewhere. So, conclusions drawn from experience alone are unreliable. If this person, like Jack Ma, meets some “master” or spiritual guru, they might change their mind and start believing in gods or higher powers. Experience may offer some insights, but it’s far from foolproof.

The second kind of atheism is speculative atheism, which has been around since ancient times. Philosophers have long debated whether God exists, critically examining the logic behind theism. One of the most famous arguments comes from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. He argued, “If God wants to prevent evil but can’t, then God is powerless. If God can prevent evil but chooses not to, then God is evil. If God neither prevents evil nor desires to prevent it, then God is both powerless and evil. But if God both can and wants to prevent evil, then why does evil still exist?” This logic effectively debunks the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God—the very concept of God in Christianity. Of course, this idea predates Christianity, but it was later co-opted by the religion. The flaw in this argument is that it doesn’t stop people from believing in a bad or impotent God. The God in the Christian Bible, for instance, is depicted as both impotent and evil, so the argument doesn’t fully disprove the existence of such a deity. Thus, speculative atheism has its limitations.

Another type of atheism we advocate today is scientific atheism, based on the foundation of modern science. The development of modern science has provided a solid basis for atheism, and scientific discoveries completely align with the predictions of atheism. The first major contribution comes from the fields of astronomy and cosmology, which have expanded our understanding of Earth’s place in the universe. In ancient times, people naturally believed that Earth was the center of the world, the center of the universe. Above Earth was the sky, and in the sky, gods and deities governed the world. It seemed logical and reasonable—after all, Earth was the center of the world, so the heavens must be looking after it. But astronomy and cosmology have shown us that Earth is not even the center of the solar system, and the solar system is just on the outskirts of the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is just one of about 800 billion galaxies in the universe. Our Earth is a tiny, insignificant speck in a very remote corner of the cosmos. Furthermore, astronomers have discovered many planets outside the solar system, some of which even resemble Earth.

So, here’s the question: Can God really manage such an immense universe? Why would He focus His divine power on such a tiny speck of dust, in such a remote corner of the cosmos, by sending His son here? What’s so special about Earth? There’s nothing to be proud of. So, once we realize that Earth is not the center of the universe, has no special position, there’s no need to imagine a deity overseeing it. This is one of the great contributions of astronomy and cosmology.

The second contribution comes from evolutionary biology, particularly the theory of evolution. In the past, atheists—especially those who relied on philosophical reasoning—were often perplexed by the problem of the origin of life and humanity. The complexity of living organisms seemed to imply the need for a higher intelligence to design them. Humans, of course, appeared even more complicated. It was hard to decide whether life and humans were naturally occurring or designed by a higher intelligence. Many scholars even chose to believe in the latter. However, evolution, and particularly the theory of natural selection, solved this problem. It showed us that even the most complex biological structures don’t require intelligent design. All life forms, including humans, evolved naturally through the process of natural selection. Moreover, many aspects of biological structures contradict the idea of intelligent design. For example, the human eye is a poorly designed and vulnerable organ, the result of many evolutionary repairs. Our spine is another example: it’s not ideal for upright walking, leading to many health problems. If a deity were truly responsible for designing life, He would have done a better job. A “god” who designs such flawed structures has no intelligence. And a deity like that is no different from natural selection itself.

Thus, evolution provides two contributions. First, it explains the origin of life and humanity without the need for intelligent design. Second, it shows that humans are not fundamentally different from other animals, especially primates. Humanity is not the pinnacle of creation. Humans have only existed for a brief moment in Earth’s history—just a few million years. According to religious belief, humans are the only creatures capable of understanding God, communicating with Him, and praying. But what about Earth before humans? During the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s geological history, wasn’t God lonely? This question further weakens the credibility of the idea of a deity.

The third contribution comes from evolutionary psychology. While evolutionary biology helps us understand the origin of life and humanity’s place in nature, evolutionary psychology addresses the origin of human morality and nature. A commenter earlier mentioned that love is part of human nature, but love, morality, and human nature have long been used as evidence of God’s existence. If God doesn’t exist, where did these qualities come from? Religious people argue that these cannot be explained by science—they must come from heaven. Evolutionary psychology, however, provides a biological explanation for the development of morality, human nature, and love. Though some aspects of evolutionary psychology are controversial, its insights into the origins of morality are widely accepted and supported by substantial evidence.

The fourth contribution comes from neuroscience. Research in neurobiology has shown that religious belief is, in fact, a physiological and pathological phenomenon. One interesting study found that patients with temporal lobe epilepsy are more likely to be religious and have transcendent experiences. Some people with epilepsy, when they experience a seizure, suddenly feel as if they have transcended themselves and developed strong religious emotions. This suggests that religious belief could be a pathological phenomenon. One scientist even invented a helmet that stimulates the brain with electromagnetic fields, and many people who wore it experienced religious hallucinations, seeing divine figures. Some people call this helmet the “God helmet.” Of course, not everyone reacts this way. The famous atheist Richard Dawkins wore the helmet and did not see God—he just felt uncomfortable. In 2012, another study showed that if the right parietal lobe of the brain (located above the right ear) is damaged, it can make people more prone to religious feelings, and the more severe the damage, the more devout their belief in God becomes. From this perspective, it can be argued that religious belief is a form of “brain damage.”

With these scientific findings, we can conclude that the hypothesis of God is not only unnecessary but also absurd. There’s a famous story from Napoleon’s time, where the renowned astronomer Laplace presented his model of the cosmos. Napoleon asked, “Why is there no place for God in your model?” Laplace responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” Modern science has followed this path, avoiding the assumption of God in scientific research. Now, the results of scientific studies show us that not only do we not need the hypothesis of God, but it’s also ridiculous and absurd. We don’t just not believe in God—we believe that God does not exist.

This belief is grounded in science, which gives us a sense of confidence. In the past, many great scholars, including Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and Bertrand Russell, did not openly declare themselves atheists, instead calling themselves agnostics. This meant they didn’t believe in God, but didn’t completely rule out the possibility either. They left room for God’s existence, saying, “I don’t believe now, but if someone proves that God exists, I’ll believe.” This was a way of leaving room for theism. But agnosticism is a weak, cowardly form of atheism—it avoids confronting one’s beliefs. This was due to the limitations of scientific knowledge at the time. But today, with the wealth of scientific evidence, we can boldly declare: “I’m an atheist. I not only don’t believe in God, but I believe God does not exist.”

Scientific atheism gives us a clear, firm stance, backed by reliable evidence. Once you understand the evidence, your belief becomes unshakable. There’s nothing more reliable than science. Since scientific discoveries show that religious belief is a pathological phenomenon—a form of “brain damage”—we have no reason to believe in it. Some religious people argue, “You don’t understand now, but you will eventually change, just like I did, and become a believer in God.” Some Chinese Christians were once atheists but converted after encountering missionaries. But they forget one key difference: when they were atheists, they were ignorant, like pets, and had no conscious understanding. But my atheism is a conscious choice, based on careful thought and supported by solid scientific evidence. Unless the scientific reasons I’ve listed are disproven by future discoveries—things like astronomy, cosmology, and biology—I will never change my mind. If I suddenly become a believer in God one day, it means something has gone wrong with my brain, and everything I said before will no longer count.

Intellectuals of Arts and Humanities often like religion—not just in China, but around the world. They believe that faith in God gives meaning to the world, that the universe is executing God’s plan, and that life has purpose. They dislike astronomy, cosmology, and especially evolution, because they believe these sciences make the world seem cold, mechanical, and meaningless. But just because the universe has no inherent meaning doesn’t mean life can’t have meaning. Many agnostics and atheists have led meaningful lives, without turning to religion for meaning. Some religious believers argue that without a deity, the world lacks warmth and purpose. But just because the universe is cold doesn’t mean humanity can’t be warm.

Religious believers are good at banding together for warmth—going to church, praying together, supporting one another. We should learn from this. As atheists, we should also come together, support each other, and encourage one another. I’m writing this blog as a form of mutual support. When I started, I had only a few followers, but now the number has multiplied, and who knows—maybe in the future, there will be hundreds or even thousands of people supporting me.

Finally, I want to tell all my readers: let us atheists band together and keep each other warm.


References

Allott, R. (1992). Evolutionary aspects of love and empathy. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(92)90023-7

Devinsky, O., & Lai, G. (2008). Spirituality and religion in epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 12(4), 636-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2007.11.011

Clark, K. J. (2019). God and the Brain: The Rationality of Belief. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London.

Johnstone, B., Bodling, A., Cohen, D., Christ, S. E., & Wegrzyn, A. (2012). Right Parietal Lobe-Related “Selflessness” as the Neuropsychological Basis of Spiritual Transcendence. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22(4), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2012.657524

Kapogiannis, D., Barbey, A. K., Su, M., Zamboni, G., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2009). Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(12), 4876-4881. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811717106

Márquez, G. G. (1987). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Wikipedia contributors. (2024, November 28). List of religious populations. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations