Atheism FAQ
There are many different version of this FAQ around the internet. This is my own version, in my own words. If and when I think of better questions and better answers I'll update this page.
If you haven't read about what I believe in, I suggest you do that now.
The focus is perforce on the Christian God and Christian faith, as that is my own cultural background and the topic I know most about. I have yet to find any religion though that's in any way plausible.
No.
Okay, now for the slightly more detailed answer. There is no evidence anywhere for the existence of a supernatural entity that created the world or actively interferes with the world as postulated by the Abrahamic religions. Any divine interference in the world would leave traces that could be measured and recorded; e.g. religious people having more “luck” on average, or being healthier, than non-religious.
Finally, which God? The Jewish God, The Christian God, the Islamic God? The Hindu Gods? The Greek, Roman, Babylonian gods? Which God is the right one, or do they all exist, or would it be more reasonable and rational to assume that none exist?
Okay, now for the slightly more detailed answer. There is no evidence anywhere for the existence of a supernatural entity that created the world or actively interferes with the world as postulated by the Abrahamic religions. Any divine interference in the world would leave traces that could be measured and recorded; e.g. religious people having more “luck” on average, or being healthier, than non-religious.
Finally, which God? The Jewish God, The Christian God, the Islamic God? The Hindu Gods? The Greek, Roman, Babylonian gods? Which God is the right one, or do they all exist, or would it be more reasonable and rational to assume that none exist?
Surely no evidence means God could exist?
In theory, yes, that is correct. In practice though just because we can't prove a negative, doesn't imply a positive. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist. I can't prove that dragons don't exist. I can't prove the UFOs don't exist. All those things could exist. I can't prove telepathy, telekinesis and fortune telling don't exist. When faced with those claims though, rational people are perfectly capable of accepting that those things don't exist, even laugh at the absurdity of people claiming they do, until someone brings out the evidence.
Christianity has had 2000 years to prove that their god exists. They've not managed it yet, instead all they do is make excuses and apologies whenever something claimed in the Bible turns out wrong.
”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
AC Grayling writes:
Christianity has had 2000 years to prove that their god exists. They've not managed it yet, instead all they do is make excuses and apologies whenever something claimed in the Bible turns out wrong.
”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
AC Grayling writes:
Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality. If a person gets wet every time he is in the rain without an umbrella, yet persists in hoping that the next time he is umbrella-less in the rain he will stay dry, then he is seriously irrational. To believe in the existence of (say) a benevolent and omnipotent deity in the face of childhood cancers and mass deaths in tsunamis and earthquakes, is exactly the same kind of serious irrationality.
If I wrote a book that claims that I am the most perfect human on the planet and then used that book as evidence for my claim, you'd laugh at me.
It's not different for the bible. The Bible claims God exists, therefore using the bible to support your claim of the existence of God is disingenuous.
It's not different for the bible. The Bible claims God exists, therefore using the bible to support your claim of the existence of God is disingenuous.
I've had my prayers answered, that's proof surely?
Can you honestly say that whatever happened could not under any circumstances have happened without the interference of a God? Are you really sure? What about pure and simple chance, random occurrence?
The Bible clearly states that all your prayers will be answered:
Matthew 7:7
The Bible clearly states that all your prayers will be answered:
Matthew 7:7
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
A mustard seed is very small. Therefore if you have the smallest amount of faith, then you can move mountains, literally.
Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.
Matthew doesn't have a monopoly on this claim:
Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
You play the lottery for a year, that's 52 weeks, and 52 entries, and before each lottery draw you pray to God that he let you win. If you win the lottery jackpot in the final week do you thank God? What about the 51 times you prayer wasn't answered, do you curse god for failing you? Do you curse the Bible/Jesus for having lied to you?
If you are sick and pray for healing, and you get better; do you thank God, or the doctors that treated you? What about your fellow churchgoer in the bed next to you that died. He prayed for his health also, did God fail him, was he unworthy of Gods attention?
If you and all your relatives and friends prayed for your health and you died, would you expect them all to reject God for failing them? No, you wouldn't, because “God works in mysterious ways”. If something good happens to you, you thank God, but if something bad happens, you don't blame God, instead you apologise for him, just as you would apologise for the black sheep of the family, and you look to yourself for the fault ,your prayer wasn't right, you're not pious enough, or it was just “your time” or “God had other plans for you”.
The next time prayer fails you will you make up another excuse for God and the Bible, or will you just accept that there's actually no one listening?
Hell doesn't exist, so how can I be going there?
Some Christians believe that God has a plan, that everything exists on this Earth for a divine purpose. Some even say that God created atheists to test their faith. If God made me what I am, then why should God punish me for doing something he forced me to do?
What are heaven and hell anyway? Heaven is eternal happiness at God's side, and Hell is eternal misery and suffering.
Imagine you are a mother and your only daughter, that you love above all things, tells you one day that she's an atheist. Do you love her less? If you do love her less because of that, what does that say about you, and your religion?
The question is though, can you go to heaven? If you go to heaven, surely you will remember your daughter, remember that she is an atheist and you will know that she will be suffering for all eternity in hell. Is this a happy thought? Surely you'd be miserable in heaven knowing your beloved daughter is roasting in hell?
Maybe, to save you the suffering, God will remove the memory of your daughter. All those happy times, all that love, an entire lifetime devoted to your daughter gone. Is that really what you'd want of your God?
Some Christians believe that God has a plan, that everything exists on this Earth for a divine purpose. Some even say that God created atheists to test their faith. If God made me what I am, then why should God punish me for doing something he forced me to do?
What are heaven and hell anyway? Heaven is eternal happiness at God's side, and Hell is eternal misery and suffering.
Imagine you are a mother and your only daughter, that you love above all things, tells you one day that she's an atheist. Do you love her less? If you do love her less because of that, what does that say about you, and your religion?
The question is though, can you go to heaven? If you go to heaven, surely you will remember your daughter, remember that she is an atheist and you will know that she will be suffering for all eternity in hell. Is this a happy thought? Surely you'd be miserable in heaven knowing your beloved daughter is roasting in hell?
Maybe, to save you the suffering, God will remove the memory of your daughter. All those happy times, all that love, an entire lifetime devoted to your daughter gone. Is that really what you'd want of your God?
But atheism is also a Faith/Religion isn't it?
Do you believe that leprechauns exist? Assuming that you don't, and most people living in the 21st century don't, do you therefore contend that your faith is a-leprechaunism? I doubt very much that you do.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
— “Mind_Rebel”
Do you believe in Thor, Zeus, Vishnu? You must therefore be an a-thorist, an a-Zeusist, and an a-vishnuist, as well as countless other a-“God”-ists.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
— Stephen Henry Roberts, Historian, (1901-71)
Calling atheism a faith is a misdirection used by religious apologists to ensure that the discussion continues on their terms. In fact, the very term atheism is a phrase coined by the religious to do just that. We are called atheists as a means to exclude and denigrate us, to make us appear negative, or lacking, simply because we refuse to take part in your superstition.
Atheism is nothing more than a rational conclusion reached by examining all the available evidence. In contrast to theists, atheists are also continually evaluating all the evidence, thinking about all they see and hear weighing the relative merits of all the evidence and opinion and basing their conclusions and their view of the world on that. Religious people believe what they believe in the absence of evidence (that very essence of “faith”) and the more zealous despite evidence to the contrary.
Jesus suffered and died for your sins, how can you reject him?
If someone called Jesus actually existed, and all that happened in the Bible actually took place, then yes, he had a really bad weekend for “our sins”.
Jesus was nailed to a cross, and suffered for somewhere around 24 hours before a compassionate soldier stabbed him to death.
Not really very heroic or godly compared to the suffering women go through in child-birth, sometimes longer than 24 hours. Or the suffering of torture victims. What of those that suffer from horrible debilitating diseases and cancer, unable to move, swallow, covered in painful sores, lesions, ulcers, eyes dried open for months on end?
There is more suffering in the world every day of the week than Jesus ever had to go through for “our sins”. Jesus had a really easy time compared to most people that suffer. Maybe Christians should find someone else to admire for enduring their suffering, probably by starting in the local cancer wards. Or maybe wonder why they as the followers of a “loving god” are made to suffer in the first place, and just what type of father would make is son suffer for something that wasn't his fault?
Jesus was nailed to a cross, and suffered for somewhere around 24 hours before a compassionate soldier stabbed him to death.
Not really very heroic or godly compared to the suffering women go through in child-birth, sometimes longer than 24 hours. Or the suffering of torture victims. What of those that suffer from horrible debilitating diseases and cancer, unable to move, swallow, covered in painful sores, lesions, ulcers, eyes dried open for months on end?
There is more suffering in the world every day of the week than Jesus ever had to go through for “our sins”. Jesus had a really easy time compared to most people that suffer. Maybe Christians should find someone else to admire for enduring their suffering, probably by starting in the local cancer wards. Or maybe wonder why they as the followers of a “loving god” are made to suffer in the first place, and just what type of father would make is son suffer for something that wasn't his fault?
How can I hate something that doesn't exist? If I hate anything, then it's what people are willing to do in God's name, be it murder, torture or bigotry.
I hate what religion does to people.
I hate the amount of money that is wasted on churches and religious non-sense when that money could be given to the poor or spent on new hospitals. I hate how religion encourages bigotry, retards progress and tries to limit our freedoms and choices. I hate the simple-minded arrogance of the religious faithful that think their version is the only possible truth, and everyone else is damned.
I hate how otherwise rational people can give more weight and more credence to the ignorant writings of iron-age men than to the collected wisdom of hundreds of years of scientific discovery and evidence.
Above all though I hate what religion can do to people; turning even the brightest of people into hate filled bigots that think the greatest thing on Earth is to die for their God, preferably by killing as many other people as possible in the process.
I hate the amount of money that is wasted on churches and religious non-sense when that money could be given to the poor or spent on new hospitals. I hate how religion encourages bigotry, retards progress and tries to limit our freedoms and choices. I hate the simple-minded arrogance of the religious faithful that think their version is the only possible truth, and everyone else is damned.
I hate how otherwise rational people can give more weight and more credence to the ignorant writings of iron-age men than to the collected wisdom of hundreds of years of scientific discovery and evidence.
Above all though I hate what religion can do to people; turning even the brightest of people into hate filled bigots that think the greatest thing on Earth is to die for their God, preferably by killing as many other people as possible in the process.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
— Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize Winning Physicist
Bad people would be bad regardless. They are distorting religion aren't they?
Certainly there are bad people in the world, and they do evil acts. I am of the view though that religion encourages evil acts, not discourages them. After all, service to one's god is considered the highest of callings, and doing “God's Will” is one of the surest ways to heaven.
History is littered with events and deeds that were spawned and encouraged by religion; the Crusades; the Inquisition. Also more modern conflicts: Northern Ireland (Catholic vs Protestant); Rwanda (Hutu vs Tutsi); Iraq (Sunni vs Shiite). The only thing that separates these people (they are the same race, colour, even speak the same language in some cases) is their religion.
Let's also keep something else in mind. Who is really distorting religion; the people that read the Bible and take it literally, read the words written by it's authors, or those that “interpret” the bible to bring it into line with modern morality, as almost all major religions, certainly Christianity, do.
Finally, I think the following quote sums up this issue rather well:
History is littered with events and deeds that were spawned and encouraged by religion; the Crusades; the Inquisition. Also more modern conflicts: Northern Ireland (Catholic vs Protestant); Rwanda (Hutu vs Tutsi); Iraq (Sunni vs Shiite). The only thing that separates these people (they are the same race, colour, even speak the same language in some cases) is their religion.
Let's also keep something else in mind. Who is really distorting religion; the people that read the Bible and take it literally, read the words written by it's authors, or those that “interpret” the bible to bring it into line with modern morality, as almost all major religions, certainly Christianity, do.
Finally, I think the following quote sums up this issue rather well:
Hurray for double-standards! When believers do good, they do good because of religion. But when believers commit evil, religion is being 'used'.
— Unknown
Surely religion has done good? It removed slavery didn't it?
Yes, the move to remove slavery was initiated by a religious group (in the UK certainly). The thing religious apologists refuse to acknowledge was that those most opposed to the removal of slavery were also the religious groups.
It was very much an uphill struggle, since those religious people supporting slavery had the Bible on their side. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say slavery is bad, in point of fact, Jesus uses slavery in a parable to bring across his points:
Luke 12:47-48
It was very much an uphill struggle, since those religious people supporting slavery had the Bible on their side. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say slavery is bad, in point of fact, Jesus uses slavery in a parable to bring across his points:
Luke 12:47-48
47That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
So, Jesus, our good hero from the Bible, thinks beating a slave who does not even know he has done wrong, is the proper thing to do. No mention of slavery itself actually being wrong or bad, though.
Interestingly enough, Ephesians 6:5-9 author disagrees with Jesus, although he also thinks nothing wrong with slavery:
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
So a slave's master should be served as if he were the Lord, (Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men) and obey them “as you would obey Christ”? Where's the bit about holding a man/woman in service, as property even, without pay is a terrible evil? Unlike Jesus though, the author here thinks that a master owes his slaves some respect; does that imply that beating a slave (even, or especially, when he didn't know he was doing wrong) is not right after all? Who should we believe?
1 Timothy 6:1-2
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
A slave should respect his master, so that God's name and teachings are not slandered. Would demanding money and freedom be considered a lack of respect, and hence, a slander on God?
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is littered with examples and instructions on slavery, and the New Testament only reinforces those. Does that mean you as a modern good Christian, who thinks slavery is wrong, are going against the wishes of God and the teachings of Jesus?
Atheism leads to evil doesn't it, look at Hitler and Stalin?
Guilt by association? Just because two tyrants (allegedly) happened to be atheists, does that mean all atheists are evil? The news recently has been full of Catholic priests being paedophiles, and of the church authorities covering it up. By your logic that means all religious people must be paedophiles and/or support them by covering up for them. I doubt you believe that, and neither do I.
Hitler's religious views are debated, with many pages listing quotes and counter-quotes by him to favour their point of view. One thing that is certain is that Hitler was baptised, and confirmed a “Soldier of Christ” in the traditional catholic manner. His own book “Mein Kampf” is full of rhetoric about religion and how Hitler is a supporter for Christ. Hitler was not fond of the established churches, but in my view, he was definitely a Christian in his own eyes.
One thing Hitler most certainly was not, was an atheist. He despised atheists and anyone that didn't believe in Jesus – be they atheist, pagan or of course Jewish – all of whom were persecuted under Hitler's regime.
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
Stalin was an atheist. While Stalin might not have believed in any gods, his driving beliefs (his own version of communism) were equally irrational. He believed that his way of organising a society was the only true and correct way (an attitude shared by religion) and he did everything he could to ensure it came about, including ignoring (or shooting anyone) that failed to support or even contradicted his view.
Even if you still believe that Hitler was an atheist, all his rhetoric and all his influence over the German people came by appealing to their religious beliefs; a statement clearly borne out by his speeches and writings. Without religion then Hitler could not have rallied the German people behind him and have them lend their support to his actions and intentions. What does that say about religion, and the morality it claims to teach?
The true cause of all those deaths and all that suffering was caused by dogma; “a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true.” If you to see the similarities between Religious and Stalinist (or any other) dogma, there's a video on youtube you might want to watch.
Hitler's religious views are debated, with many pages listing quotes and counter-quotes by him to favour their point of view. One thing that is certain is that Hitler was baptised, and confirmed a “Soldier of Christ” in the traditional catholic manner. His own book “Mein Kampf” is full of rhetoric about religion and how Hitler is a supporter for Christ. Hitler was not fond of the established churches, but in my view, he was definitely a Christian in his own eyes.
One thing Hitler most certainly was not, was an atheist. He despised atheists and anyone that didn't believe in Jesus – be they atheist, pagan or of course Jewish – all of whom were persecuted under Hitler's regime.
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
Stalin was an atheist. While Stalin might not have believed in any gods, his driving beliefs (his own version of communism) were equally irrational. He believed that his way of organising a society was the only true and correct way (an attitude shared by religion) and he did everything he could to ensure it came about, including ignoring (or shooting anyone) that failed to support or even contradicted his view.
Even if you still believe that Hitler was an atheist, all his rhetoric and all his influence over the German people came by appealing to their religious beliefs; a statement clearly borne out by his speeches and writings. Without religion then Hitler could not have rallied the German people behind him and have them lend their support to his actions and intentions. What does that say about religion, and the morality it claims to teach?
The true cause of all those deaths and all that suffering was caused by dogma; “a belief or set of beliefs that a religion, political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be unquestionably true.” If you to see the similarities between Religious and Stalinist (or any other) dogma, there's a video on youtube you might want to watch.
No.
People should be free to believe in and worship whatever and whoever they want, as long as that doesn't interfere with my (and others') freedoms and with society as a whole.
What does that mean? Well, take recent events in the UK. The country as a majority thinks that gay people should be given the same rights as straight people. The church is opposed to a law to ensure that. They want an exception to allow their members to continue to discriminate against gay people. Society has moved on, moved to moral plateau that sees all humans as equal and deserving of equal respect and rights, and the church is left behind in its bigoted, dark-age attitudes.
What right do religious people have to impose their morals and views on the rest of us? Why should the views on morality of the religious be given more weight than the views of others?
As a secular and rational atheist, I would actually stand up for your right to meet your cardinals and bishops in your dark churches and whisper your nonsense words while crawling on your knees. That should be your right. Just don't expect me to tolerate you trying to curtail my rights, or the rights of others in society.
The ideal world for me is one of a totally secular society, where the religious have the same social status as train spotters, psychics and fortune tellers; considered slightly eccentric by society at large, but accepted with amused (bemused?) tolerance.
People should be free to believe in and worship whatever and whoever they want, as long as that doesn't interfere with my (and others') freedoms and with society as a whole.
What does that mean? Well, take recent events in the UK. The country as a majority thinks that gay people should be given the same rights as straight people. The church is opposed to a law to ensure that. They want an exception to allow their members to continue to discriminate against gay people. Society has moved on, moved to moral plateau that sees all humans as equal and deserving of equal respect and rights, and the church is left behind in its bigoted, dark-age attitudes.
What right do religious people have to impose their morals and views on the rest of us? Why should the views on morality of the religious be given more weight than the views of others?
As a secular and rational atheist, I would actually stand up for your right to meet your cardinals and bishops in your dark churches and whisper your nonsense words while crawling on your knees. That should be your right. Just don't expect me to tolerate you trying to curtail my rights, or the rights of others in society.
The ideal world for me is one of a totally secular society, where the religious have the same social status as train spotters, psychics and fortune tellers; considered slightly eccentric by society at large, but accepted with amused (bemused?) tolerance.
Atheists think they know all the answers, doesn't that make you arrogant?
Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. Atheists are not arrogant. We accept and acknowledge what we don't know. We're not sure how the world came about, we're not sure how life started, we can't explain everything in the universe.
It is the religious that are arrogant. The religious believe they know where the universe came from, they know God created the world, created people and animals.
Unable to be honest with themselves the religious need to invent something to fill the gaps in their knowledge, be it ancient societies that worshipped the sun because they didn't understand it, or be it modern societies that worship god because they don't understand the universe.
Atheists don't suffer from this arrogance and insecurity. We are perfectly capable, even proud, of accepting that we don't know everything, that we can't explain everything. We have the scientific evidence presented to us by centuries worth of learning and study from the greatest minds. We don't need to invent some mystical being to shield us from the truth.
Maybe one day science will be able to answer all those questions, maybe it won't. If it does, we'll surely have more unanswered questions to take their place. In the meanwhile, we'll be on the lookout for the answers, instead of hiding our ignorance behind the face of a God, and the fairy-tales of iron-age writers.
It is the religious that are arrogant. The religious believe they know where the universe came from, they know God created the world, created people and animals.
Unable to be honest with themselves the religious need to invent something to fill the gaps in their knowledge, be it ancient societies that worshipped the sun because they didn't understand it, or be it modern societies that worship god because they don't understand the universe.
Atheists don't suffer from this arrogance and insecurity. We are perfectly capable, even proud, of accepting that we don't know everything, that we can't explain everything. We have the scientific evidence presented to us by centuries worth of learning and study from the greatest minds. We don't need to invent some mystical being to shield us from the truth.
Maybe one day science will be able to answer all those questions, maybe it won't. If it does, we'll surely have more unanswered questions to take their place. In the meanwhile, we'll be on the lookout for the answers, instead of hiding our ignorance behind the face of a God, and the fairy-tales of iron-age writers.
Aren't all atheists amoral/immoral?
Morality has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists are defined as lacking a belief in one or more gods, this does not say anything about what ethics atheists subscribe to. As an earlier question pointed out, Stalin was an atheist, and his morals were shocking by most people's standards. The vast majority of atheists are as moral and law abiding as any theists.
Some studies even suggest that atheists might be more moral than theists. Why might this be? I think it's simply because many atheists get their morals by evaluation the world they live in and examining each moral and ethical decision from a more neutral stance. Theists come to each moral and ethical decision with their guidelines (e.g. the bible and/or church doctrine) firmly in place as the basis of any such decision. What then happens when the bible and morality/ethics collide? As a non-theist I am not burdened by a book that condones slavery or that denigrates and devalues women, I can immediately see that those are wrong; I can empathise with the slave or the woman, and I wouldn't want to be treated like that, so neither should they. A theist though has a problem; God or Conscience? When God overrides conscience… that's when you get persecutions and religious warfare.
If you are interested in morals, maybe you should read a blog post of mine on that subject.
Some studies even suggest that atheists might be more moral than theists. Why might this be? I think it's simply because many atheists get their morals by evaluation the world they live in and examining each moral and ethical decision from a more neutral stance. Theists come to each moral and ethical decision with their guidelines (e.g. the bible and/or church doctrine) firmly in place as the basis of any such decision. What then happens when the bible and morality/ethics collide? As a non-theist I am not burdened by a book that condones slavery or that denigrates and devalues women, I can immediately see that those are wrong; I can empathise with the slave or the woman, and I wouldn't want to be treated like that, so neither should they. A theist though has a problem; God or Conscience? When God overrides conscience… that's when you get persecutions and religious warfare.
If you are interested in morals, maybe you should read a blog post of mine on that subject.
interests/atheism/atheism_faq.txt · Last modified: 2008/05/21 14:02 by martinsgill
