Atheism 101: Answers, Explanations and Rebuttals

Grigory Lukin

Copyright 2011 by Grigory Lukin

INTRODUCTION

This book is not a manifesto. It’s not an atheistic Bill of Rights. It's a helpful guide for all atheists out there, as well as for those who are curious about atheism, those who want to expand their intellectual horizons, and those who believe in God and want to debate their opposition more efficiently. This book contains a number of common accusations, misconceptions and taunts aimed at atheists by their less secular brethren. Its main purpose is not to de-convert believers (that almost never happens) but to dispel stereotypes and educate.

I’ve been an atheist my whole life and I’ve been asked the same questions over and over, time and again. “Why do you hate God,” “What’s the point of living with no religion,” and even “What’s keeping you from going on a killing spree?” (I wish I were joking…) After a while, I perfected my responses. The vast majority of questions we atheists are asked are very much alike, and if you learn how to defend yourself from pointless accusations (“you’re immoral!”) and how to debunk common misconceptions (“atheists hate God”), you’ll be guaranteed not to lose a religion-vs-atheism debate ever again. If you learn how to handle the most frequently-asked questions, you’ll be able to settle for at least a draw in a religious debate. If you use one of the rebuttals provided at the end of the book, you just might be able to plant the seeds of doubt and – who knows – turn a believer into an atheist or at the very least an agnostic.

The answers provided below are far from original. In fact, anybody with an Internet connection and enough time to kill (which I have in abundance) can find the same information elsewhere, just like I once did. Most of the entries are intentionally short because the book is intended to be a handy reference guide you can refer to when confronted with an angry or confused theist. It’s one thing to mention the treaty of Tripoli, but if you have the actual text of the treaty in your pocket, you won’t only win the debate – you’ll also get the rare opportunity to watch the face of somebody whose fundamental beliefs (or, rather, misconceptions) just got shattered. Enjoy.

BASICS AND POLITICS

How many atheists are there?

Good question! The numbers vary greatly, depending on your definition of atheism, whether or not you’re willing to include agnostics (people who haven’t made up their mind about the existence of God), and many other factors. For example, an atheist who lives in California would be far more willing to admit his lack of belief than somebody who lives in the deep South.

Estimates vary from 2.7% to 15%, depending on who you ask. Even if we go with the most conservative estimate, 2.7% is still a lot of people – 189 million, to be precise. Compare this with the world’s Jewish population: 13.42 million, or 0.2%. That means there are more than 13 atheists for every Jewish person, even though you’d never guess it from the amount of coverage that we get…

Is there really a war on Christmas?

Nope. It’s a completely non-existent conspiracy that was invented by the right and/or evangelical Christians (they don’t always overlap) solely for the purpose of scaring their constituents senseless. It’s quite effective, too. After all, what holiday gets more positive associations than Christmas? And what demographic group is more hated than atheists? (More on that later.) That was a match made in heaven, if you pardon the pun.

The term “war on Christmas” gained popularity thanks to conservative pundits such as Bill O’Reilly and Peter Brimelow who began to cover this non-existent phenomenon in the early 2000s. It’s true that there are atheists (as well as theists who want to keep their religion and their government separate) that protest taxpayer-funded religious displays in public buildings, such as courthouses. Even though such cases are relatively rare and they are usually justified (for example, a nativity display does not belong in front of a federal courthouse), but you’d never know it from the disproportionately large amount of coverage they get in the media.

Finally, you can’t have a war if you don’t have a headquarters, a plan of attack or, most importantly, an army of some sort. Although I am flattered that atheists are considered to be such a formidable and scary opponent, it couldn’t be farther from the truth. The truth is this: even though there are millions of atheists in the United States, we don’t even have a strong lobby. (The ACLU doesn’t count because it protects all the underdogs, not just atheists.) Although I admit the possibility that maybe, somewhere there is a Grinch-like atheist that spends all his time trying to ruin Christmas for as many people as possible, that’s quite unlikely. Even if that were true, that still wouldn’t qualify as war on Christmas. A guerrilla attack on Christmas or a potshot at Christmas, maybe, but war? Nah.

Why do atheists hate the Pledge of Allegiance?

We don’t hate it. We just want to remove the words “under God” from it – that’s all. The original version, written in 1892 by Francis Belamy, was a bit different from the version we hear today: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Over the years, there have been four modifications to the Pledge, the most controversial of which happened in 1954 when Congress added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. The reason was simple: it was during the Cold War, to differentiate us from those godless communists in the Soviet Union and show them that God was on our side, not theirs. Seeing as the Cold War went on for 37 more years, it doesn’t appear to have been very effective…

It’s hard to imagine that including the words “under God” to the Pledge was such a huge national priority back in the 1950s. However, this isn’t the ‘50s – this isn’t even the twentieth century – and that religious reference has outlived its usefulness. We all know that there are a lot of Christians in America, and there is no more Soviet Union, so we can take those words out of the Pledge, right? Apparently, that’s easier said than done. There have been many legal challenges to the Pledge’s language, but so far the only real outcome is that students don’t have to recite the Pledge if they don’t want to. (Yay First Amendment.) A lot of cases, such as the 2002 case by an atheist activist Michael Newdow, are dismissed on technicalities. Other times, courts simply refuse to hear the case. Newdow’s latest case against the Pledge’s language was defeated by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 in a 2-1 decision. According to the judges, the words “under God” have nothing to do with religion and should be kept because they are of "ceremonial and patriotic nature." In other words, even though the words were clearly added because of religion, they’ve been there so long that they stopped being religious and became ceremonial instead. If that doesn’t make any sense, don’t worry – you’re not alone.

If you still don’t see what the big deal is and you’re Christian, imagine this: every time you go to court, school, or any other official function, you’re supposed to face the flag and say “God hates America” or “There is no God.” Would that sit well with you? Now you can imagine why atheists aren’t very enthusiastic about essentially saying “God loves America” every time they have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

How does one become an atheist?

Some people are born that way and never buy into religion to begin with. Others grow up with religion and begin to question it later on. It usually happens in college, or during a midlife crisis, or after a traumatic experience that doesn’t quite fit in with the idea of an all-loving God. Although it’s theoretically possible for a believer to become an atheist just by analyzing his beliefs in a logical and detached manner, such cases are rather rare. After all, religion is a very sensitive topic for most believers – it’s one of the first things they’ve ever learned, part of the foundation of their entire identity. Try challenging somebody’s beliefs and you’ll often get the same angry reaction you’d get if you insulted that person’s mother. (That’s one of the many, many reasons I don’t even bother arguing about religion anymore.)

“Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity” by John W. Loftus is an excellent firsthand account of one man’s journey from religion to atheism and I can’t recommend it highly enough.

What’s the deal with the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect example of what happens when you make a great argument, add some humor and put it online for everyone to see. That’s exactly what a 24-year-old Bobby Henderson did in 2005 after the Kansas Board of Education ignored his open letter. In his letter, Henderson made a case for a hypothetical deity called Flying Spaghetti Monster, claimed it was a valid alternative to intelligent design, and asked the Board to give intelligent design, evolution and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (or Pastafarianism, as it later became known) equal time in science classrooms.

After the Board ignored his incredibly sarcastic letter, Henderson posted it on his website, at which point it went viral. His hilarious logic made just about as much sense as that of intelligent design supporters (more on that later), and he too managed to twist some scientific facts to fit his theory. Basically, he made the case that the declining number pirates (the original Pastafarians) was responsible for global warming and natural disasters. Just like with intelligent design, it’s impossible to disprove any of the arguments for Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence, which means it should get exactly as much funding, attention and classroom time as intelligent design.

There are thousands of self-proclaimed Pastafarians, many of whom are college students, atheists trying to oppose intelligent design in an ironic way, and assorted beer/pasta/pirate enthusiasts.

To learn more about Flying Spaghetti Monster – or to become a Pastafarian minister – head over to http://www.venganza.org

EVOLUTION

Evolution is just a theory!

Actually, there is a world of difference between the layman’s “theory” and scientific theory. If you say “I’ve got a theory about that missing iPod,” you’ll be using the word in a colloquial sense. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, which means it’s a hypothesis that’s got a lot of facts supporting it and that can be tested over and over. Gravity is “just a theory” too, but you don’t see people jumping off cliffs to disprove it, do you?

Scientific theories are not created on a whim by a bored researcher who wants to push his own evil secular agenda – quite the contrary. A theory begins with an observation. Then a hypothesis is formed and tested, time and again. If the hypothesis in question holds up and if experiments produce consistent results over and over, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Here is an example. Observation: slow gazelles get eaten by lions. Hypothesis: fast and healthy gazelles are more likely to survive and reproduce than slower, less healthy gazelles. Experiment: tag a group of wild gazelles and observe (preferably from a very safe distance) them getting chased by lions. If you conduct the experiment enough times and confirm your hypothesis, you’ll be able to upgrade it to a theory: animals that can avoid predators, due to either speed or some other adaptation, survive and reproduce. This example is grossly simplified, but it conveys the essence of scientific method and the kind of work a scientist needs to do to produce a theory.

Do you honestly believe humans were made from monkeys?

Well, no, not really. We didn’t evolve from monkeys. If anything, monkeys are our evolutionary cousins. Both humans and monkeys had a common ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. (Think of the ape-like ancestor as your great-great-great-…-great-grandfather.) At some point, our evolutionary branches split and we continued to merrily evolve in our different, separate ways.

There are a lot of similarities between humans and monkeys because we are, after all, very close on the evolutionary tree. A chimpanzee is a lot closer to a human than, say, a giraffe, but that doesn’t mean that we evolved from chimps.

If evolution is so great, how come we don’t see it happening every day?

Actually, we do see it. You won’t see a person “evolve” to shoot lasers out of his eyes because (unfortunately) that only works in comic books, but there are many different evolutionary processes constantly happening all around us. When a new pesticide is used on weeds, most of them die, but the few that have natural immunity can survive, spread their seed (no pun intended), and before you know it, you’ve got a new generation of weeds that aren’t affected by pesticides. It works the same way with bacterial diseases, which is why we have drug-resistant tuberculosis and other so-called superbugs…

If you want a more specific example, look up silkworm moths. They’ve been domesticated for thousands of years, to the point where they lost their ability to fly and protect themselves in the wild. If that’s not evolution, what is?

If you want a real-life example, go to your local farmers’ market and ask any farmer if he ever managed to eradicate all the weeds (or pests, or bugs) on his fields. The answer will be a resounding “no” because even if 99.9% of weeds get wiped out by pesticides, the surviving 0.1% will spread again, and next time the pesticide won’t be nearly as effective.

Teach the controversy! Why not teach intelligent design alongside evolution?

Probably because intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory. It can’t be tested and there are no experiments that would prove or disprove it, so it doesn’t belong in science classrooms. If anything, intelligent design (previously known as creationism) is a “what if” thought experiment that attempts to poke holes in evolution and tries to plug God (sorry, I meant to say “intelligent designer”) wherever it can. Sure, we can teach it – but only in philosophy classes. If we teach this so-called controversy alongside the theory of evolution, we would have to teach astrology with astronomy, alchemy with chemistry, and so on. Yay for controversies, huh?..

The differences between creationism and intelligent design are superficial. In 1987, the Supreme Court heard the case of Edwards v. Aguillard. The case was about a Louisiana law that required teaching creation science along with evolution in public schools. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There was, however, a small loophole in the court’s decision to allow teaching alternative scientific theories: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

In other words, if you come up with a scientific theory concerning our origins, you can teach it in a public school. Thus, ever since 1987 creationists have been peddling their “science” under the label of intelligent design and trying to pass it off as legitimate science. They briefly succeeded in 2005 when the Kansas State Board of Education, dominated by religious conservatives, amended science class standards to include extensive criticism of evolution and portray intelligent design as a valid scientific alternative. Fortunately, conservatives on the Board of Education lost their majority in 2007 and everything returned back to normal.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean intelligent design has been expelled from public schools once and for all. At any given time, at least one state (or a county, or even an individual school district) tries to introduce intelligent design in the public school curriculum or, at the very least, add mandatory “it’s just a theory” disclaimers in science classes. Chances are, it will stay that way for the foreseeable future, with lawyers and judges deciding whether quasi-religious “science” belongs in public schools.

Darwin wrote that the eye couldn’t have been formed by natural selection!

Yes, he did. Here is the quote in question: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Sounds pretty bleak, doesn’t it? If you continue reading, however, everything becomes clear: “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God"), as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

In layman’s terms, Darwin said that there are many examples of different stages of eye development – from primitive eyes that can only tell the difference between light and darkness to human eyes. Therefore, it’s only logical to assume that the eye has evolved naturally, just like the rest of our bodies.

Evolution is false because humans were made in God’s image

Really? Do you really want to go there? Fine. Enter the vestiges. Vestigial body parts are evolutionary leftovers – organs and body parts that lost their function a long time ago, but that are still present in our bodies. Appendix is a good example. So is the tailbone – a not-so-subtle reminder that once upon a time our ancestors used to have tails. The supposedly perfect (depending on whom you ask) human eye has a number of vestiges as well. As Dr. Michael Shermer brilliantly put it, our eye was built "backwards and upside down." Either the all-powerful and all-knowing God was experimenting with hallucinogens when he made us, or he’s not so all-powerful after all. Which is it?

Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed!

Um, no. No, he didn’t. This story originated from one Lady Hope, a Christian woman who may or may not have visited the dying Darwin. Everybody else who was with him in his final hours didn’t hear anything remotely that sounded like a conversion, nor did Darwin write anything on the subject. Essentially, there isn’t a single piece of evidence for that theory, aside from the testimony of a blatantly biased evangelist with an agenda.

And even if this were true – so what? That’s the great thing about science – one man’s opinion or religious belief doesn’t threaten or change anything, unless he can prove it. (Unlike, say, the Pope with his edicts that are supposed to be followed unquestionably.) In the highly unlikely event that Darwin did convert to Christianity and denounced his own theory of evolution on his deathbed, that doesn’t change a thing. The theory of evolution is still here and it’s still strong. Putting words in somebody else’s mouth (especially when that somebody is dead and can’t defend himself) doesn’t seem very Christian… Somehow I doubt Jesus would approve such post-mortem personal attacks.

MORALS AND BEHAVIOR

If you don’t believe in God, where do you get your morals?

From my parents, teachers, neighbors and friends. From reason and the golden rule. (Treat others the way you’d like them to treat you.) One doesn’t have to be religious in order to be a good, moral person. Here’s a simple experiment: If all religious people were moral and all atheists were immoral, there wouldn’t be any Christian hypocrites or criminals, and all the prisons would be full of atheists. Obviously, that is not the case, which means the proposition (“Religion equals morality! Yay!”) is false.

In fact, according to the statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, only 0.21% of prison inmates in America were atheists. Think about it: 0.21%. That’s about one out of every 500 people. In other words, 499 out of every 500 prisoners are religious! If anything, this means atheists are far less likely to commit crimes and have far better morals than religious people. Either that, or we can afford better lawyers. Or maybe the true reason for this statistical anomaly is completely different – unfortunately, there haven’t been any studies on this topic. All we have is just the aforementioned numbers, and numbers don’t lie…

If you don’t believe in hell, what’s keeping you from going on a killing spree?

Just because I’m an atheist, doesn’t mean I’m a hyper-aggressive caveman. I don’t have violent urges that would compel me to take natural selection into my own hands, and besides – if there is no afterlife, then this is all we get. As Joss Whedon put it, “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.” In other words, if this is the only life we’ll ever get and if there are no tearful reunions with your loved ones in the afterlife, we get only one chance to get this right. There are no second chances, no take-backs, nothing but here and now: all that really matters is you, your loved ones and the choices you make.

When it comes to the “axe murderer” accusation – why on earth would I want to deprive other people of their lives and spend my one and only life in prison? Conversely, does this mean that the only thing keeping religious people from going postal is their fear of hell?

Secular humanists are a great bunch of people who derive their morality from, well, secular sources – I suggest doing some reading on them if you want to learn more about non-believers and their morality.

Atheism is just another religion because you believe there is no God!

Er… no. Atheism is not a religion. Religion implies belief. Atheism, by its very nature, is lack of belief. If you take the word apart, you get a-theism. “Theism” means religion, and the prefix “a-“ means absence, not opposition. For example, an asexual person (“a-sexual”) is one who isn’t interested in sex, not one who hates or opposes sex.

Here is another example: let’s assume you don’t believe in unicorns. That would make you an aunicornist – a-unicorn-ist. (I apologize for this linguistic atrocity, but it’s the best I’ve got.) If you actively and vehemently denied the existence of unicorns all the time and preached that unicorns are a lie, you’d be an anti-unicornist. Do you see the difference?

Religions have many common characteristics. For example, Muslims face Mecca when they pray, don’t eat pork, and believe that Allah was a prophet. Christians read the Bible and believe in the existence of God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. On the other hand, pretty much the only thing atheists have in common is that they don’t believe in God. There are no ritual rites for becoming an atheist, there are no secret handshakes and there is no worldwide atheist conspiracy to destroy Christmas, no matter how much FOX News talks about it.

Finally, if you (or the people you’re debating) are still not convinced that atheism is not a religion – fine, let’s assume that it is. In that case, that would mean atheism is the oldest religion in the world. After all, it’s safe to assume that whenever the first cavemen invented their first religion, there must have been at least one caveman (cavewoman?) who had his or her doubts about the whole thing. Religions come and go, but doubt and skepticism are eternal. The world’s oldest religions go back “only” 5,000-10,000 years, but if atheism is in fact a religion, then it’s at least 10 times as old. Seniority means authority, and if lack of belief outlasted most of the beliefs out there, maybe atheists are onto something after all.

There are no atheists in foxholes!

Sure there are. Atheists are everywhere – there are quite a few of us in the military, as well as on front lines. In fact, there are quite a few accounts of religious people who lost their faith after fighting in a war. Unless you come up with a groundbreaking study, it’s safe to assume that being in a foxhole doesn’t automatically turn an atheist into a religious person.

Actually, a 2004 report by the Population Reference Bureau (an independent, private data analysis agency), shows that agnostics and atheists comprise 21% of military personnel. Non-believers in the military outnumber Jews, Muslims, and pretty much every religious group aside from Catholics and Protestants.

LIFE, DEATH AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN

If you don’t believe in God, what’s the meaning of life?

42! Or whatever floats your boat. The meaning of life is to find a meaning. It’s what you make of it, really. For some people, it could be the pursuit of money, for others it’s serving their country or being a good parent. We atheists come from all walks of life, and we’re all different, except for our lack of belief in gods. Since we are not an organized movement or a religion, there is no official atheistic position on the meaning of life, just as there is no atheistic consensus on the best kind of ice cream.

If you don’t believe in God, where will you go after you die?

Most likely, I’ll go to the local morgue. Then I’ll have a brief date with an embalmer and spend the next few decades biodegrading and fertilizing local plants. As for the spiritual aspect – since there is no hard proof of afterlife (before you ask - the plothole-filled book “Heaven is for real” does not qualify as hard proof), it’s logical to assume that once I “wink out,” as one of my college professors put it (Hi, Dr. Eubank!), that will be it.

You mean you’ll just die and that’s all?! Why aren’t you afraid?

I think Mark Twain said it best: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” If you are so concerned with what happens after you die, just try to remember anything from before you were born. Perhaps the ancients had it right – live, drink and be happy, for tomorrow we die. Whoever is right and whatever awaits us after death, you won’t lose anything by enjoying your life, here and now.

For most people, death is a terrifying concept. In fact, I personally think this is why a lot of people turn to religion, especially as they grow older. Some people, on the other hand, accept the fact that a human life is finite and that it might be the only life we’ll ever get. In its own way, it brings a sense of completion to this whole life business and makes one appreciate one’s life – and all the unique moments that will never be relived – that much more.

Let me put it this way: when you see a beautiful rose, do you enjoy its beauty and inhale its aroma, or do you get depressed because you know that someday it will dry up and die? All living organisms get born, achieve their peak potential, grow old and eventually die. Humans are the only species that’s aware of its mortality. Ironically, that knowledge is what keeps so many of us from enjoying our lives and living them to the fullest… I know this makes me sound like a cheesy motivational speaker, but life really is too short. Live it to its fullest. Enjoy every sandwich. Make the most of what you’ve got.

Atheists are just selfish jerks!

Some of us are, and some of us are not. Sure, we get to sleep in on Sunday mornings, but just because we don’t want to spend our time praying to an invisible man in the sky, doesn’t mean there’s something inherently wrong with us. And if you think about it, what’s more selfish: living by your own moral code and taking moral responsibility for your actions, or justifying your actions with the fear of going to hell, all the while trying to score enough brownie points to make it to heaven?

Of course, not all atheists are perfect – we have our fair share of bad apples, just like every other group out there. If you ever got offended or insulted by a rude, inconsiderate atheist, please accept my apology on that person’s behalf. Not all of us are like that, and most of us are pretty decent folks.

ARGUMENTS OF LAST RESORT

How about Pascal’s Wager? Why won’t you believe in God just in case?

Ah, yes, the good old Pascal’s Wager… It goes like this: if you’re an atheist and there is no God, you’re in the clear. But if there is God and you don’t believe in him, you’ll go to hell. So why not believe in God just in case he exists? The cost/benefit is tremendous! It would be the investment of a lifetime!!

Well, there’s a very simple rebuttal to this wager. If this God you speak of is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, do you really think he won’t know about your wager and the insincerity behind your belief? Attempting to fool the most powerful being in the universe would probably anger him even more than a run-of-the-mill skeptic. You’ll still end up in hell and you will have wasted all the time you spent in church and Bible study groups.

There are many, many other ways to fight the ridiculous logic of Pascal’s Wager, but this is the simplest one, since it strikes at the fundamental flaw in the wager’s logic.

America is a Christian nation that was founded on Christian ideals!

This is my favorite strawman! It’s a very common misconception, actually. Lately, it’s become particularly popular to put words into Founding Fathers’ mouths and pretend that they were regular evangelicals. Fortunately, we can use their writings to set the record straight. The best way to refute the “Christian nation” meme is by quoting the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed in 1797 by John Adams (who just happens to be one of the Founders): “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

And there we have it: the United States of America was not founded on the Christian religion.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the separation of church and state!

Yes and no. The term comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, but one can find the concept behind it in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If you want to get into the semantics, the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not in the Constitution either (it’s in the Declaration of Independence), but it’s an important principle that serves as the foundation of our national identity. The Federalist Papers are not in the Constitution, either, but they are recognized as part of the constitutional framework – in other words, they’re the user guide to democracy and were intended specifically to clarify any confusion people might have about their government.

Fun trivia fact: the Constitution doesn’t mention the Marines, the Air Force or the Coast Guard – the only military branches mentioned in Article II, Section 2 are the Army and the Navy. Next time a Marine tells you that separation of church and state is unconstitutional, tell him that so is he.

But what about Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin? They were blood-thirsty atheist maniacs!

Yeah, they were maniacs. There’s no debate on that point. But did they kill millions of people in the name of atheism? Nope. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single dictator who proclaimed that his primary motivation was atheism, atheism and nothing but atheism. On the other hand, we have the Crusades… Regardless, let’s look at the Big Three up close, shall we? Adolf Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic and was even an altar boy at one point. You don’t have to dig deep to find him referring to Christianity in his speeches. Moving on: Joseph Stalin. It’s a little known fact, but he studied at a Georgian Orthodox seminary. And as for Pol Pot, he spent a year studying at a Buddhist monastery, followed by eight years at a Catholic school. Neither one of those three was a shining beacon of sanity and we may never know what exactly they thought and believed in, but calling them atheists is inaccurate at best.

REBUTTALS

Mother Teresa was technically an atheist

Mother Teresa is universally renowned as one of the greatest humanitarians of the twentieth century. However, it wasn’t until a few years ago that the public learned of her crisis of faith. Her faith began to erode in 1949, when she was 39 years old. This is what she wrote in one of her letters: “Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? [...] I call, I cling, I want, and there is no One to answer, no One on Whom I can cling, no, No One. Alone. Where is my Faith - even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. My God...”

She never did regain her faith and spent the next 48 years of her life going through the motions and preaching the religion in which she no longer believed. There is no denying that her charity and humanitarian efforts saved lives, but the fact remains: she was technically an atheist (or, one could argue, an agnostic) for most of her life. This is the only piece of evidence you need when debunking the “you can’t be a good person without religion” argument.

The paradox of the stone

It’s an ancient paradox, and it’s brilliant in its simplicity: Can God create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he can’t create such a stone, then he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he can’t do. If he can create that stone, he will not be able to lift it, which means – once again – that he is not omnipotent.

There are a lot of similar paradoxes because Christian God is supposed to be omnipresent, omnivolent and omnibenevolent (translation: be everywhere, know everything, always be good). Trying to reconcile all three of those is problematic and pretty much impossible, at least philosophically speaking – ergo the paradoxes.

Who created the creator?

Since creationism (and its offspring, intelligent design) likes to invoke the imagery of a creator, it’s only fair to ask: who created the chief creator? Where did God come from? Who made him? How? The most common cop-out I’ve heard is that God exists outside of time and space, and therefore normal rules don’t apply to him. To me it seems like intellectual evasion, and usually debates don’t go too well once they reach this point. Still, it’s a good question and it just might cause some believers to think about the things they take for granted about their faith.

Why won’t God heal amputees?

This is by far the best question to ask if you want to turn the tables and watch your Christian opponent squirm as he tries to come up with an answer. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus says that all prayers will be answered. Throughout history, there have been cases (usually poorly documented) of people who cured all sorts of diseases through the power of prayer. And yet, to date there hasn’t been a single case of an amputee whose limb grew back. Odd, isn’t it?

Here are just a few New Testament verses that promise the fulfillment of any and all prayers:

And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (James 5:15)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done. And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22)

And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14)

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:24)

About the author:

Grigory Lukin is a Siberian entrepreneur who somehow ended up in the Las Vegas. He enjoys steak and breaking the status quo. His goals include early retirement, becoming a bestselling author, and getting a pet platypus. For more information, visit his site at http://www.grigorylukin.com