Making a Case for Atheism

A theist by his or her very 'unnatural' nature, holds onto the concept of God and often all the mystical 'excess baggage' that comes with their religion, such as Heaven and Hell, belief in miracles, belief in the virgin birth, water turning into wine, Jesus walking on water, the parting of the Red Seas etc - they hold onto these beliefs, without even thinking that they have to make a case for their position. If you hold a more childlike belief in religion, then if your a Christian as just one example, you may even believe in Noah's Ark. If you can believe something, purely on faith, why would you have to make a case for it? - Indeed, the religious never or rarely ever try to defend their position.

But lets begin with the starting premise of attempting to make a case for atheism. Well, atheism is not, as some theists like to claim, 'just another religion' ...atheism in objective terms, simply means the none acceptance of the God concept; that's it. Now on what basis would one have to make a case for it. I would say the opposite, if someone disagrees with the atheist position, let them make a case against it. But it will have to be more convincing than, 'I'm not an atheist because I believe in God'.

The fact is, that in criticizing atheism, that is just about the best a theist can do. They can only criticize atheism through defending the concept of God. The fact is, this is a none starter; before you can defend a position and indeed, disprove the opposite proposition, you first have to produce, at least a modicum of evidence...

The above, is why the 'atheist position' does not have to prove its case. The atheist is not trying to prove anything. An atheist, is not holding the atheist position as a system of believes. The atheist position is simply the non-acceptance of God, and that's it.

As an atheist I do not have to go round thinking: 'I really have to work hard at my atheism today, I'm losing my atheist faith'. It is something most atheists never or hardly ever think about. Atheism is as natural to an atheist, as breathing air. But theism is something totally different. Unlike atheism which is just a 'negative' proposition to counter a claim made in the positive, religion on the other hand is a 'positive' set of beliefs. Religion is something individuals tend to work at, to stay 'holy' ...There must be an awful lot of sore knees in the World, from taking up servile postures on prayer mats.

If I was going to attempt to put a case forward for atheism, then I would simply say, look at the track record. Now it may well be true that atheists have done some heinous things in the World, but let us exclude one of the favorite, but erroneous arguments put forward by theists to denounce and 'blacken' atheism, trying to make a synonymous connection of atheism with Stalinism and Nazism. This is of course a 'red herring' argument against atheism, that is usually brought up, as the theists very 'low-bandwidth' level of attack. They have little to defend their religious position, so their only form of defense is attack, but when you cannot produce evidence for your position, then the best that is available is the odd non sequitur.

The one case that is put forth against atheism, which I grant is a little stronger than the Nazi/Stalin non sequitur, is the claim that without religion, we would not have causal link that acts as a catalyst, to bring people together... without religion, there would be no community. Now it may well be true that religious organizations have led to communities coming together and created social cohesion. But on the other-hand, one could argue that the only reason atheistic communities have not been aloud to grow, is because religion has held the monopoly of control.

But of course, the so called social and communal spirit created through religious 'harmony' is really not as blessed as the claims made for it. Northern Ireland is just one example of where religion did not lead to community, but hostility another example is the The Israeli Gaza Strip. But even if it were true that one could show, that religion does in some respect, create a community spirit (at least when it's not behaving to badly), that in itself does not make any of its beliefs true. I suspect, a society totally and utterly free of religion, would more naturally lead to a more harmonious community than one with it.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Undelete NOW!
o Rescue your deleted files from any hard disk

Comments on Ethics for Atheists

Ethics for atheists? ...This suggests that atheists for the most part are not already ethical. Where are the morally backward atheists who are running amok and toppling the foundations of morality?

There is no evidence that atheists are any less ethical than anyone else.

I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I would say I have been an atheist from the age at which I was able to grasp its meaning. I saw through religion as man-made mysticism from a very young age and I have no conscious recollection of ever being religious in any way whatsoever.

As an atheist, do I feel morally obliged to be good to my neighbor? - Yes. Do I feel empathy for a fellow human being in distress? - yes.

The real question based on the 'ethics for atheists' premise is: As an atheist do I need an 'atheists handbook' of ethical guidelines to know what is good vs. what is bad moral behavior? ...the answer is simple and concise - no I do not.

I have naturally grown up with an innate internal 'moral compass'. I seem to be naturally guided in the direction of what is the morally acceptable course of action in any situation. Did I have to find a moral code in a handbook, to know that returning someone's lost wallet is the right thing to do? ...of course not.

That 'moral compass' is innate in all of us and has no connection to religion. I do not buy into the argument that many theists make that 'they are ethical because of their religion'. They will often push it further and say 'without my religion I could not be moral'.

Richard Dawkins, the 'charles simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford University, once appeared on Fox News and a man phoned in to the program and said on air: "Without religion, I would kill my neighbor". What a low bar; to believe that mankind is so naturally depraved, that if you take away religion, neighbors would start killing one another

Healthy minded parents naturally love their children and guide them within a morally ethical framework of good behavior. The simple fact is that most individuals have a good grasp of what is good behavior and what is bad.

When someone commits a heinous crime, such as murder, rape, child abuse... We immediately assume a psychological flaw in the character of the assailant. The assumption is not derived at based on a subjective whim.

It is well know that a child who did not grow up in a loving household, often grows up with the inability to love others. Indeed, serial killers are able to kill others because they lack empathy. When someone is brutalized as a child, they often grow up to be brutes (not always, some individuals courageously overcome their childhood traumas to become well balanced adults)...

Of course, someone can be brought up in a loving household and grow up to be a brute too, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule and such individuals most often have a mental deformity or defect that leads to such pathologies.

A favorite and usually deliberate exploitative 'trick' among theists is to link atheism to Stalinism/Nazism and other such morally negative 'isms'. Lets clear these bromides up right now:

To link Stalinism with atheism as though they are synonyms is a non sequitur. While it may be true that Stalin was an atheist, it does not therefore follow, that atheism is the root cause of Stalinism.

The Russian population was very easily exploited by Stalin in the first place, because of years of religious indoctrination. Indeed, because of years of such indoctrination by priests of the church, their minds were inculcated in mysticism that set them up to be very easily exploited by a dictatorial figure, who could set himself up as a god-like 'totem'. I think it would be very unlikely indeed that Stalin could have so easily exploited a population, that was much less mystically minded and held values founded on a secular rather than religious footing.

What goes for Stalinism is equally true of Nazism. It may well be true that many individual Nazis were atheists and it is certainly true that many were Christians. What one cannot say is that atheism is synonymous with Nazism. It is not only dishonest of theists to do so; it is cheap. Hitler himself was certainly not an atheist... read: Hitler Was Not An Atheist, by John Patrick Michael Murphy.

So, to argue for ethics for atheists is really a none-starter. For the most part atheists are already ethical and are innately so.

Theists claim to already have a religious code of ethics within scripture... may I make the 'bold' claim that if they stopped following scripture, they would naturally fall back on their innate internal 'moral compass' just as atheists already do and just as most moderate Christians already do.

We know of course that most Christians are not reading the Bible and taking its edicts as codes to action in real life. Who today is literally following the commands in Leviticus or Deuteronomy... Only a mad-man would. So one could say that: to the degree that theists do not follow the literal interpretation of religious text today and instead follow their own innate morality, then they are simply doing what atheists are already doing... They are living by a moral standard based on reason and not based on faith.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Plus Kits
o Ultimate self-development CDs, combining NLP, hypnosis and brainwaves!