Most of you are probably familiar with this argument. It’s inevitable that at some point in the conversation, a genuinely confused Christian may ask you how you can have a definitive moral system without the benefit of a higher power telling you what is right and wrong. As far as many Christians are concerned, the denial of God also means the denial of an absolute system of ethics.

I can understand their confusion. They have been led to believe the Bible is the absolute authority when it comes to ethical behavior, and our society is the product of Christian teachings and values. However, unbeknownst to them, western society has been influenced more by contemporary philosophers and thinkers than theologians. The reason is simple: as a moral treatise, the Bible is far too inconsistent, cruel, and incomplete to serve our needs. What are we supposed to do with the Book of Numbers, which says:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18

You don’t exactly see a lot of foreign policy being dictated by Biblical scholars, do you. Or how about this passage on how to properly raise your child from Deuteronomy:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him . . . and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die. Deut. 21:18-21

I’m not trying to suggest all parts of the Bible are vicious or incompatible with how we live our lives today. The ‘Golden Rule’ of treating others how you would like to be treated is something all human beings can agree on. It’s also why this rule appears in many other religious texts which predate the New Testament. The idea that people should live peacefully and love thy neighbor is not a new concept, and it certainly isn’t limited to Christianity.

The Golden Rule, however, does not necessitate the existence of a God in order for it to work. It’s a rule that deals only with how human beings interact with one another, and there is no need to invite a supernatural element to it. Treat me kindly and I’ll do the same; that’s it.

In fact, you’ll find our entire society is built on the premise that human beings have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their fellow man. When you harm, steal, or kill someone else, you will be punished by people, not by a sky God. For a long time we have realized the only way to have an orderly society is by taking matters in our own hands. We’re not waiting for God to punish the guilty. We handle that ourselves.

All laws are man-made. They are designed by humans, for humans. When drafting any new law, we look at the impact it will have on people; not how a mysterious sky God will react. Long ago, before there was any real orderly structure of society, religion was one of the few ways to keep people lawful. But because clergymen are above reproach, abuses were inevitable (can you say Inquisition?). Western society only became modern when we wrestled these responsibilities away from individuals who could not be held accountable, or who claimed divine providence.

I would rather place my trust in other human beings than in a God who answers to no one. If ‘He’ decreed all Canaanites must die, there isn’t a lot of room for debate, and that in itself is fairly frightening. Christians may wonder how we can be moral without God, but I ask you this: how can you be moral when you can’t even understand how he operates (don’t you always say he works in mysterious ways)? Let me put this another way for anyone who claims the Bible is the infallible word of God: since you obviously pick and choose what you think God wants you to do (see above quotes), how can you be sure you picked the right rules to follow?

I’d rather trust in the inherent goodness of people than some tome of highly dubious origins. Why should we entrust our morality to a book that was written during a time when genocide, war, murder, and slavery wasn’t a big deal?

Austin Cline over at About.com put together this comprehensive list of surveys showing just how despised atheists are as a minority. When Americans were asked who they would vote for, the atheist candidate was always the most hated one. For people like you and me, this kind of attitude seems pretty puzzling. Sure, we can be a bunch of killjoys at parties, but statistically, we are less likely to commit violent or petty crimes. We’re a pretty moral bunch, all things being equal. So why are we so despised?

Finally, other studies and surveys indicate that prejudice against atheists is going back up. A March, 2007 survey done by Newsweek shows that 62% of people would refuse to vote for any candidate admitting to being an atheist. Republicans were, predictably, the most bigoted at 78%, followed by Democrats at 60% and independents at 45%. Among those surveyed, 47% claimed that America is more accepting of atheists than in the past. I wonder where they got that idea? The only positive results from this survey were that 68% of the people felt that atheists could be moral — but this begs the question of why people won’t vote for atheists.

Believing in God is like being part of a club; although there might be a large variety of them, the fact there are so many others who believe in a relatively similar intangible being is comforting; it reinforces their belief that he does, in fact, exist. Atheists completely reject this notion, and their adamant objections and arguments break up their comforting world view.

The idea that anyone can live peaceful and fulfilled lives without God is a huge threat to their belief system. After all, religions use human ignorance and fear as recruitment tools. Worried about whether or not you’re living morally? Worried about what will happen to you when you die? Try religion! Of course, the fact an ever increasing proportion of the population reject the facile answers of theocracy threatens their monopoly over our culture. It’s no surprise, then, that pastors in church teach their parishioners to despise and distrust atheists.

Is it possible to change this prejudice attitude towards us? It’s doubtful it’s going to change anytime soon. Despite the rhetoric that Christianity is somehow a peaceful and tolerant religion, the simple truth is ‘good’ Christians were the ones pushing for segregation as much as they were fighting for civil rights. Today, a great number of them fight both for and against gay marriage. The only way to predict the behavior of Christians is to examine their degree of religiosity. The more they believe, the more they hate others who don’t mimic their beliefs.

Normally I don’t pay much attention to those who ceaselessly attack Dawkins and Hitchens, mostly because although I respect and enjoy their books, they are not the definitive works on the subject of atheism. Yes, both The God Delusion and God is Not Great make powerful cases against believing in God, but to say these two tomes somehow embody all of the principles of atheism would be a lie, one that Terry Eagleton seems to have no problem spreading. He’s written a new book called Reason, Faith and Revolution where he accuses both authors of being ignorant on the subject of mainstream Christianity.

The problem, of course, is that Dawkins and Hitchens never deal with mainstream Christianity primarily due to the fact moderate Christians are not truly Christians at all. Sure, they claim to believe in the Bible and its teachings, but in actuality they follow the moral teachings of the age of Enlightenment. Modern Christianity is nothing like its ancient counterpart, but this veneer of modernity can be peeled off, revealing a religion that is still stuck in the Bronze Age.

I’ve lived my whole life in a Christian community, and know full well the kinds of people it develops: close minded bigots, usually. I will not deny there is a great element of fraternity and social commitment that has a long tradition in the religion, but this is often countered with their supreme efforts to convert those they help as well. Food, shelter and clothing are sometimes only offered to those who profess Jesus as their savior.

I’ve never found Dawkins or Hitchens were ignorant of religion. On the contrary; both are highly educated men who have long studied the Bible and the history of Christianity. The irony here is they know more about Christianity than most Christians, who read so little of their own Bible that their morality often comes from other, more secular sources.

It sounds like I’m trying to defend these two men, who obviously don’t need my help, but it really bugs me when authors attack other writers simply because they don’t like what they’ve read. Straw man attacks are pretty common in religious circles, so I’m not usually all that surprised. Still, I’m putting Eagleton’s little book on my list of things to read this year. We’ll see how strong his argument is (considering he calls Dawkins and Hitchens “Ditchkins”, I’m not too hopeful it’ll be a fair critique).

The New York Times wrote a piece yesterday on the growing atheist movement, and the increased confidence of many non-believers who are tired of hiding their beliefs. It’s one of the few articles that seems to show us with dignity, humanity, and understanding. This, increasingly, is the kind of coverage we should be seeking. It’s no secret a great proportion of Americans still think we are despicable, Satan worshiping whackos. Most have never taken the time to actually hear us out, so these kinds of pieces are at least showing people that we are not afraid anymore.

The angle of the story is that rather than attract negative attention, atheist organizations are getting huge outpourings of support from both monetary contributions and well wishers. We are witnessing the beginning of stronger atheist organizations that help clean up roads, feed the homeless, and provide a range of services that have been the domain of religious institutions. We’re getting stronger, and this can only mean good things.

Here’s an awesome list of 50 of the most brilliant and celebrated atheists of all time. The list is pretty impressive, including such geniuses as Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, and Ivan Pavlov (yeah, the guy with the dog). Be sure to go check it out!

I don’t have very many religious friends, so I haven’t often been put in a position where my beliefs were really challenged. I received an email from a friend recently concerning a very interesting dilemma he’s facing (I’m including most of the letter intact since James is an excellent writer):

[T]here’s something atheism-related that I’d be interested to get your input on. In fact, if you feel it’s a topic worthy of discussion on one of the podcasts, please feel free to bring it up. Basically, a lifelong friend of mine (he’s my Karate instructor, who I’ve known since I was six) is having his kid Christened, and asked me to be a godparent. Obviously, as an atheist, there is something of a conflict of interest there.

At face value, I have no problem with it, and don’t take my own anti-theism so seriously that I can’t stand there in the house of our lord, chuckle a little bit at the biting irony, and just spout the Biblical gobbledegook for the sake of ceremony. What matters is that I’m pledging to do right by this kid, to set good examples and make sure he turns out to be good peoples – all the Christian mumbo jumbo is just that. I don’t feel the need to be militant and tell my friend that, “Your religion is full of shit and I want nothing to do with putting this poor little bastard on the evil path of the Church,” even though that’s basically how I feel.

But here’s the thing; my other half is a Zen Buddhist (essentially Buddhism without a lot of the mumbo jumbo – it’s basically more like Taoism). She finds Christianity just as ludicrous and offensive as I do, but she was asked earlier this year to be the godparent of her brother’s newborn baby. She felt a lot more conflicted than I did, and was initially going to refuse on the grounds of her own beliefs. But when she saw how cool I was about being a godparent for my Karate instructor’s kid, she decided that she’d likewise just chuckle at the irony of it all and do her part.

So, I’m sitting there in the Church, watching her stand there in front of all the gaudy trappings of Christianity while some crossdressing kiddy fiddler talked about how the godparents were pledging to “surrender to Our Lord Jesus Christ” and all this crazy shit, and I’m thinking to myself, “Fuck me – if I was her I’d probably have to walk out right about now, because this is just bullshit.” It was one thing to play it cool in principle, and say that I would bite my tongue to service the message, not the missive, but seeing my other half standing there while all this pantomime morality was going on… it made me feel genuinely queasy.

I’m now very torn on the matter. One half of me is still of the opinion that the guy (who, incidentally, really doesn’t like religion or the church at all – I think he’s just doing the Christening because it’s “what people do” with a new kid) should do what he wants, and his intentions are honourable, and I don’t want to be as bad as a Christian missionary by throwing my own beliefs in his face, especially on such an occasion. But on the other hand – thanks to my increased awareness of atheism and the atheist community, which is entirely the fault of you and your site – I really don’t want to be the one to let the side down by cowtowing to this Christian bullshit. And of course, there’s the fact that my Buddhist partner only stood there with gritted teeth because she knew her atheist boyfriend was going to do the same thing…

Seeing as how this is mostly a consequence of poor James being tuned into atheism, it seems more than fair that I should answer the man. For starters, I understand exactly what you mean when you refer to the quiet rage you felt listening to these guys talk. When you’re off the bullshit wagon, you begin to see all the subtle and manipulative things the church does and says. So yes, in that regard it can be pretty damn difficult to suffer through it.

In regards to your friend, you probably both realize that the purpose of the ceremony is merely to make something as personal as the status of godfather seem more concrete. Say what you will for their dogma, but Christianity has always had a stellar reputation in understanding how to help foster the bonds of trust. A ceremony is nothing more than a way of making sure everyone involved is on the same wavelength. Think of these guys as the equivalent of a bunch of bureaucratic lawyers with a religious bent.

You mention being confident in your beliefs, but there is obviously a part of you that still feels threatened by the whole affair; the lone atheist surrounded by believers who demand that you conform to their ceremony. You can change that by adding your own part to the process so as to reclaim it. In other words, if you find a way to create your own form of bonding ceremony that is not religious with your friend, you won’t feel cheated out of the experience. Your time in church listening to the sermons will seem quaint.

The tough part about being an atheist is that we have no real ceremonies and custom that allow us to connect with other human beings the same way religions do it. It is ultimately what makes them infinitely more popular. It does not mean that we cannot find our own ways of expresing the most beautiful of human emotions; we just have to work a little harder at it.

I can’t tell you how many times I’m ‘accused’ by a person of faith that my label of atheism somehow implies I must have faith in the idea to the same degree they do. I want to try and clear the air here, and explain why my belief in the non-existence of God is not a position of faith, but is simply the most rational interpretation of the available evidence.

Historically, I can admit atheism is fairly new to the scene. Most human beings who have ever lived have believed in a variety of gods that manifest their presence in the world around us. It’s why many cultures anthropomorphize just about everything they came in contact with. The Greeks had all kinds of stories that tied mythical creatures with every day phenomena. Even in that day and age, however, there were those who preferred natural explanations rather than supernatural ones. One such man, Eratosthenes, calculated the circumference of the Earth by observing shadows were of different lengths in different cities at the same time of day. From that simple observation he realized the earth was round, and his calculation remained the most accurate for another 2000 years.

My belief in the circumference of the Earth is not faith, since I can verify his findings myself quite easily. History has proved his method to be sound. Eratosthenes refused to be satisfied with the facile explanations of religion and set off to discover its secrets using his deductive powers. This is something that occurs naturally through the scientific method. We observe, try and make predictions, and test them to measure their accuracy. Each new discovery adds to our collective understanding of the universe, which has only improved since the Renaissance.

Science is not about faith, since unreasoning belief is the precise opposite of its fundamental principle; everything must be challenged, proven, and measured. A religious person has faith there is a God simply because he is told there is one. He may think the Bible text offers some proof as to his existence, but even these tomes offer nothing in the way of evidence. To the contrary; they often strongly conflict with our modern understanding of the natural world. Jonah living in a fish for 3 days, Joshua stopping the sun to extend an important battle, or Jesus raising the dead are all phenomena we know to be impossible. There is no reason to believe these stories are true, but the faithful see it as proof of the supernatural powers of their deity.

It’s not something I have to trust, since the information itself comes from a highly dubious source. There are no other references to these events anywhere in recorded history. Why would there be? You would be as likely to find evidence of Christian myths as you would ancient Greek ones. They are all simply stories meant to be interpreted as moral homilies. Nothing more.

I don’t believe in God because there is no compelling reason. Although it is true there are many things we have not discovered, believing in something because of a lack of evidence is not a rational position to have. Like every human being, there are certain things I have come to believe without fully studying the question myself. I know the pyramids exist, but I trust the information because I have multiple sources which confirm their authenticity. If I was ever to doubt these myself, I have the opportunity to find out. Science is the same: if you want to know why the sky is blue, you can find it out for yourself. No need to just trust that it’s true.

Faith is a type of trust, but for religious individuals, they place that trust in the hands of individuals who have highly sophisticated interpretations of mythology, not reality. These ‘experts’ are still trying to answer the question of whether or not God can make a rock so large even he can’t lift it. Rocket science, this ain’t.

This is why I find the label so insulting. I refuse to be put in the same mold as they are specifically because the information I trust is more than plucked from the imagination of some theologian’s head. I trust in science because it’s a trustworthy method of uncovering facts about the world around you. More importantly, I recognize our understanding of the natural world continues to improve, and yesterday’s discovery may be different from that of tomorrow. The picture of the universe is still incomplete, but what a picture it is!

If you wonder whether or not it takes faith to be an atheist, ask yourself if it takes faith to turn on the heating in your home, or to take antibiotics. If you can provide strong evidence proving the existence of your god beyond the pathetic examples you already have, then I’ll change my mind . Until then, I’ll stick with atheism. It’s just more sensible.

I’m not really in the habit of visiting Christian blogs. There is nothing about their viewpoint I haven’t heard or read a million times. Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the way, the light and the only salvation. I get it; you love the guy.

The Proud Atheist recently asked “why do Christians visit atheist sites”, and I thought I might put in my two cents. Christianity is a proselytizing religion. If you aren’t spreading the good word, you apparently aren’t doing something right. In their eyes, we are the deluded ones who have strayed from the light. Our apparent apostasy from the folds of religion is a departure that threatens our very soul, and so they may feel compelled to act rather then stand idly by and do nothing.

We do not ask for their help, for their opinions, and still they give it, despite the fact we are content in our world view. These Christians who frequent atheist sites have no idea once the Pandora’s box of atheism is opened, it is impossible to believe the easy answers of religion. We have seen a cosmos without an operator, and it’s transformed us.

Quoting scripture is the way most Christians express their religious opinion, and it belies the fact so many of them are locked into a mentality they inherited rather than earned. Free thought is the condemnation of all ideologies that cannot stand on their own merit, and institutions that command their followers to abject submission.

In the atheist blogosphere, having to put up with Bible quoting Christians is all part of the game. Personally it’s always reminded me why I do this thing anyways.

When I first asked myself this question, I concluded admitting to the American population that you are not a believer equates political seppuku. All of the 22 closet atheists sitting in Congress today agree, save one: Pete Stark.

The Democratic senator from Northern California has stated he’s an agnostic, but also admitted to not believing in a higher power. I can appreciate his diplomatic stance on religion in this sense, but for all intents and purposes, he’s really an atheist. And so far, he’s received thousands of emails from around the world congratulating him for ‘coming out’.

It’s crazy when you think about it: that fundamentally your personal and private beliefs could destroy your political career. California is a bit of a unique place, and I’m not sure if the rest of the US could be so kind as to re-elect a heathen.

Truth be told, I want to see this sort of debate happen in politics. It would highlight the fact religious zealots are forcing individuals to hide their true beliefs simply because of the intolerance of believers. I don’t personally care if a candidate is religious, so long as it does not interfere with his duties. The same cannot be said for the religious right, and so the playing field is uneven, I guess the American Dream is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (so long as Jesus makes you happy). Lame.

If you’ve ever called yourself an agnostic, then you should head over to the Radical Atheist’s blog. He’s written an article on how agnosticism is compatible with atheism. Here is a quote from the article:

I see no inconsistency in being both agnostic and an atheist. I’m an agnostic in the methods I use to discern truth (small a) and appreciate reality. I’m an atheist in my opinion on theism. I do not contend that gods absolutely do not exist. That would contradict my opinions on absolutes. But the probability of something like any god existing, let alone any specific god, without leaving any unmistakable physical evidence of its existence that unequivocally points to the god, is so infinitesimally small that it is barely possible.

I agree with him that agnosticism is more of a frame of mind than a real belief. For practicality’s sake, it seems foolish to me to think sitting on the fence is an adequate response to the question of the existence or non-existence of God. I can respect a person who says they are open to the idea (in some small form), but until solid evidence is shown that there are gods, choosing to have no opinion seems to me a way of validating the improvable assertions of theists.