Let me start out with a couple of definitions.
Atheist- One who does not believe in any god.
Note: This does not mean believing in the lack of a god. It simply means not believing.
Theist- One who believes in one or more gods.
That's rather simple, isn't it? Well, I think so anyway. But, there are a number of misunderstandings about atheism. The following are some questions/comments from theists, usually Christians, and my responses to them. No actual quotes, even though the theist questions/comments will be in quotation marks.
"How can you have morality without God?"
This comes under the mistaken idea that morality requires somebody to dictate it. That is very mistaken. There are any number of moral philosophies, only one of which requires a moral ruler.
Examples:
Authoritative Morality- This is the moral philosophy that sais, "Morality is defined by the dictates of (insert authority here)." This is the moral philosophy of most theistic religions. It is, however, rather arbitrary. No matter what the authority sais is moral, that is what is moral. So, if the authority told one to kill an infant, that is moral. Most particularly, the authority can always make an out for itself by saying that the rules don't apply to it.
Humanism- This moral philosophy decides whether an act is moral or not by its affect on human life. If it benifits human life, it's good. If it harms human life, it's evil. If neither, it's indifferent.
Hedonism- Most people think that this is the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it." Untrue. Hedonism believes that moral acts are those that bring the greatest pleasure the greatest amount of people. Ideally, what makes everybody happy, is moral. This has the same problem that Authoritative Morality has, it's arbitrary. If it makes everybody happy to see gladiators die in the arena, well...
Nihilism- In short, nothingness. There is no real morality. I find this depressing and without any use as a moral philosophy.
Most people, however, base their morality off of simple empathy for others. It's immoral to kill people because a person is actually dieing as a result. This is best defined in the golden rule "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you." Unlike what some would like to think, this was not invented by the Christian god. Neither does it require anybody to tell you that something is wrong. It's just common sence.
"If God didn't create everything, how did it come about?"
I don't have to have another theory in order to realize that your model doesn't have any supporting evidence.
This question comes from the mistaken impression that having answers where others have none makes the existing answers right. Untrue. I can illustrate this with a little story.
Two "primitive" people, Thorag and Steve, were walking down the beach. They found an object that they hadn't seen before. It had two transparent circles of some hard substance. Each circle was surrounded by metal, and, connecting the two circles was a curved metal bridge. From either side of this object were wires that extended in the same direction, with a hook-like portion at the end of each extension.
Steve looked at the object and asked Thorag if he had seen anything like it before. Thorag hadn't seen anything like it before. They both thought long and hard about what it might be. After a while of little success, Thorag had it.
"I have it," Thorag said. "It is something that the gods use. With these hooks, they hang it from the roofs of their homes and on these two circles, they hold their decorative trophies, where all can see them."
Steve thought about it for a moment. He looked at the object. He looked at the hook-like portions.
"They aren't complete hooks, how can they be hooked on anything?"
"Well," said Thorag, "their gods, I'm sure they can find a way."
Steve thought about it again. "I really don't think that's what this is."
"Well, do you have a better idea?"
Obviously, neither knows what the object really does. But, Thorag has an answer. Steve doesn't have an answer. Does that make Thorag automatically correct for having an easy answer?
"Don't you have faith that there is no god?"
No. To lack belief in something, one only needs a lack of evidence. As there is no evidence for the existence of any god, one doesn't have to excuse the lack of belief in a god.
As well, I would ask any theist that would ask this a qestion. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, do you believe in the lack of unicorns? Well, in order to believe that unicorns don't exist, all you have to have is a lack of any logical reason to believe that unicorns exist.
"If there is no god, people who do horrible things and get away from human authorities will just have gotten away scot free."
This comes from the mistaken impression that we can decide what the truth is by what we would prefer. Would the world be so much better if there was no such thing as racism? Hell yes, but that doesn't wish away racism.
"If there is no god, all our lives are meaningless."
To this, I have two responses.
1. Do you really need a reason to live? For me, living is preferable to dieing. I don't really need any more reason to live.
2. That would only be true if the only possible way to get meaning in life is to have it given to you by a diety. You can give yourself a meaning to life.
"If God is real, you're going to be in so much trouble. But, if he isn't, what am I losing?"
This is otherwise known as Pascal's Wager. The basic idea is that it's just safer to believe in God.
You've just got to love the thinking behind that. I mean, why not, just for a moment, ignore any issues of morality, truth, or justice. That's what it would take.
The very nature of Pascal's Wager asks the individual to be utterly dishonest with him/herself. Take any doubts you may have and stash them away in a corner of your mind that you won't ever find them again. Because, if you believe, you're in the safe zone.
But, there are problems beyond even that. The Christian god is hardly a just one. Even the slightest bit o' anger, and you're deserving of Hell. A morality designed to be impossible. So, what makes you think that this deity will want you in Heaven at all?
And, it makes no determination of which god. It could work easily for any god. In fact, it could be equally of use to convince people that I am the one true god. Let's see. You could believe in another God, but if I am the one true god, you're going to lose out for eternity. But, if I'm not, there's no big loss for worshiping me.
Hey, I could use this same reasoning to convince you that God wants you to spend at least 50% of your life on Earth with a 6inch carrot stuck up your ass. If God does want it, you'ld be risking eternity. If not, a bit of discomfort only.
Ofcourse, that brings up theological questions of its own. How thick must the carrot be? Are you supposed to let it rot in there? Are you allowed to change the carrot? During defication, are you supposed to hold the carrot so that it doesn't get pushed out?
Well, that's just a beginning. More to come at unspecified dates. If you think I've misunderstood something, have any comments, have any questions, want to spread the word of Cthulu, ect, email me. wingedbeast@hotmail.com
My own essays
Problems With Christianity
In Site Links
Home Page
My Stories Page
Role-playing Games
Atheist and Atheism Related Sites
An in-site link to questions I have for theists about their religion. These are rather centric to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition of religions, because that is the set that I've had the most exposure to.
Thinking (non)Theistically A website composed mostly of essays and responses to other essays. They're well worth the read.
Toxic Doctrines a page on a website dedicated to casting out ideas it doesn't agree with as toxic.
Biblical Errancy A website about the bible from a more critical/skeptical point of view>
Deja.com forum: alt.atheism
