Arguments for Atheists

Secular Reasoning in the 21st Century

By Jason Wilks

Kindle Edition

_____________________________

Copyright © 2012 by Jason Wilks. All Rights Reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by informational storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.

_____________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Atheism in a nutshell

What is an atheist, and what do we believe?

Atheism is not a religion

We’re all atheists

Why don’t we believe?

Morality

The 10 commandments

Logical reason why god is not such a nice guy

Does our morality come from god?

Where do you get morality from, if not from the bible?

Can religion be harmful?

Living Levitically: rules from Leviticus even Christians break

Does absolute morality exist?

Hitchens’ challenge

Science and society

Is there a correlation between atheism and quality of life?

The big bang

Evolution

The brain and the soul

Other ridiculous ‘scientific’ things from the bible

God and faith

Pascal’s wager

Why is faith a good thing?

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the evil one?

How do you know god is more powerful than satan?

God loves you!

The character of Jesus

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

Jesus’ sacrifice

Jesus wasn’t quite the just, peaceful guy we think he was

The supernatural

What constitutes a miracle?

Do miracles occur?

The arrogance of ‘answered’ prayers

What would make me believe?

Sex

Homosexuality and gay marriage

Contraception

Abortion

Conclusion

Introduction

Religions of various kinds have been around as long as humans have, and for good reason. We crave answers and explanations for the world around us, and for thousands of years, religious beliefs helped us to make sense of the things we did not understand.

But in the last 500 or so years, we have been discovering the answers to many of those questions. We now know how diseases spread, what causes lightning, what stars are and how many (approximately) there are in the universe. But there are still many things we do not have the answer to, such as what happens when we die, and how exactly the universe began.

Religion, in many ways, helped humanity to get on the right track to discovering more about what we are and how we came to be, and provided the first answers to these unknowns. Religion first got us started on philosophy, education, morality and medicine. If you consider the airplane as an analogy, we still build all planes with the same fundamentals of flight as the Wright brothers’ first successful attempt, but there is no reason to continue using the very first design, as it is obsolete and would be quite dangerous today. Religion is the same. Some of the basic, fundamental ideas we came up with thousands of years ago still hold true (think of the golden rule), but a reluctance to allow modern philosophies and moralities to progress past those bronze-age basics is ludicrous.

In this day and age, it has become apparent to many of us that it is time to discard the ancient myths of our ancestors in favour of the truths that we have learned, and are continuing to learn.

I originally sat down to write this book for myself. I was interested in religion, and wanted to know more about why I didn’t believe in god. I knew that I didn’t believe –and never really have – but I had no solid arguments to use when religious conversations popped up. I didn’t know enough about religion to have a truly informed debate.

I started by reading books by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and taking notes to remember later. The Atheist Experience, a public TV show based out of Austin, Texas helped me a lot, as the hosts of the show are excellent speakers with strong, well-thought-out arguments. I bought a bible, and started reading that, cover to cover, to see for myself what exactly was said in it. There are many religious and atheist websites on the internet as well, and I found it really helpful to read about both sides of the arguments, and find my own questions for either side.

After I had dozens of pages filled with thoughts, ideas, quotes and bible passages, I started writing this book that you are now reading. Writing things down has helped me to think harder about my beliefs, come up with strong arguments to back them up, and most importantly, understand the differences in why people believe what they do, no matter what their beliefs are.

I am no expert by any means, in the matters of theology, science or morality, but all are subjects that I love to read about, think about and learn about. I hope, if you are reading this book, that you are the same. Above all else, I urge you to be sceptical, about the things I have written here as much as the things you have read elsewhere. If you read something that I have written and think to yourself, ‘wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense,’ please go and do your own research. My aim in writing this is simply to provide some thoughts and ideas about religion that maybe you hadn’t thought about before, so that you can go and ponder them for yourself. One of the most fascinating things about religion is that we all have our own opinions, and no one can convince you of what is true except yourself.

You’ll notice that I pick on Christianity far more than other religions. While I believe that religion as a concept is no longer useful and all gods are man-made, I live in a country where Christianity is the majority religion, and I went to Catholic schools for my entire childhood. I’m not against Christianity more than any other religions, I just happen to personally know more about it than I do Islam, Judaism or any other world religions.

Please keep in mind as you read this that I am not trying to prove definitively that no gods exist. Science may one day be able to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, perhaps one that created all of reality, but as of now this kind of proof is not possible. All I’m attempting to do here is show that with the information we currently have, a belief in any gods is unnecessary, and ultimately harmful to our species and modern society.

This book is intended mainly for two groups of people. First, atheists who know that they don’t believe in gods, but need some reasons to back it up, for themselves or for discussions with others. If this is you, I hope this book will provide you with some ammunition, and I don’t necessarily mean for arguments with theists, but also for yourself, so you have some things to think about.

The second group this book is for are agnostic theists, who don’t understand why atheists don’t believe in any gods. I want you to understand us, consider our points of view, and hopefully, begin to agree that there really is no need to believe in any gods.

Atheism in a nutshell

What is an atheist, and what do we believe?

When it comes to religious belief or non-belief, there are four categories where a person can be placed, based on two dichotomies: Theism/Atheism, and Gnosticism/Agnosticism. There are a lot of different perceptions about what exactly these terms mean, so for simplicity’s sake, when I use the terms throughout this book, the following are the definitions that I’m using.

Theism refers to a belief in a god or gods, and atheism refers to the contrary, namely a lack of that belief. This is sticky, because many people think that atheism means a belief that there is no god, and though this is commonly the case, within this book, think of it as lack of belief in god, rather than as an active belief that he doesn’t exist.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism refer to knowledge, rather than belief. By that definition, every single person on Earth is agnostic, because in reality, no one knows for sure whether or not any gods exist (no matter how strongly they think they do). So let’s go with a definition that is easier to categorize. Gnostics claim that they have knowledge whether or not there is a god, and agnostics do not make a claim to that knowledge.

With this in mind, and before you read on, in which of these categories do you currently sit on this spectrum?

1. Gnostic atheist – You have no belief in any god, and you claim to know that in fact no gods exist.

2. Agnostic atheist – You have no belief in any god, but you do not claim to know if any exist or not.

3. Agnostic theist – You believe in a god or gods, but you do not claim to know if any exist.

4. Gnostic theist – You believe in a god or gods, and you claim to know that your god exists (I doubt any theist would claim knowledge of any god other than the one they personally believe in; imagine a Christian claiming he knows that Vishnu exists).

Humanity exists in a perpetual bell curve, for basically every aspect of life. Some of us are super-geniuses, and some of us still can’t figure out where the little man is who turns on the light in the freezer when you open the door, but most of us are somewhere in the middle. Some people are as kind and gentle as dandelion fluff on a puppy’s forehead, and some people will shit down your throat for supporting the wrong football team. Again, most of us are (thankfully) somewhere in between. So it’s not surprising that most of us, being generally reasonable and intelligent, consider ourselves either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. We don’t know if there is a god or not, because if anyone did know, the matter would be evident and you wouldn’t be reading this book right now.

Atheism is not a religion

What are some of the things that define a religion? The first and most important factor is that there is some kind of deference to, or worship of, a higher deity. It is for this reason that Buddhism is often not classified as a religion, but more of a philosophy on life. Buddhists do not worship Buddha as a god, but rather as a man who ascended beyond reality by living a life (actually, multiple lives) of kindness and selflessness. Without a deity of some kind, a worldview cannot be defined as a religion.

Another aspect of a religion, is that there are dictates on how its adherents can or can’t behave. Hindus can’t eat beef, because they consider the cow to be sacred. Christians aren’t supposed to have premarital sex. Muslims must pray five times a day, and not only that, the prayers must be pointed in the direction of Mecca, a holy city in Saudi Arabia. Do atheists have any set of actions they must or must not perform? Absolutely not. And no, we don’t eat babies.

Are there any atheist ceremonies? We have meetings and conventions, of course, but there are no ritualistic actions to be performed. Atheists are less ceremonial than your average NFL team. Are we, as a group, expected to hold certain beliefs? Nope. In the Christian view of the world, abortion, stem cell research and contraception are not to be supported, no matter how strong the argument for them may be. Now, that being said, many atheists do hold many of the same beliefs (the majority of us are politically left, pro-choice, and do not doubt evolution), but there is no obligation to hold these beliefs, which cannot be said of any religion.

No deities, no ceremonies, no dogma, no tenets: no religion.

Atheism is not even a system of beliefs, as many people seem to think. There is no system, as a system implies multiple aspects. There is only one thing that all atheists inherently must have in common, and that is a rejection of the claim that any gods exist. That’s it.

We’re all atheists

One major problem with theism is that it inherently denies the existence of every god in every religion ever, except for the one that is directly pertinent. If you are a Christian, it is safe to assume that you don’t believe in Zeus. If you are a Muslim, I’m willing to bet that you don’t believe in Vishnu. If you are a Viking circa 500 AD, then bravo for mastering either immortality or time travel, but either way I’m pretty sure you don’t believe in the Christian god. Theists are in reality atheists in respect to every single deity that anyone has ever worshipped except for their own. Atheists just deny the existence of one more.

There have been thousands of gods over the course of human history, with a loyal following of people who claim that theirs is the one true god (or gods), and that all other gods are false. This is a problem! There are four possibilities here:

1. All gods are real, and all creation stories are true.

2. Some gods are real, and the corresponding creation stories are true.

3. One creation story is true, and the god or gods that correspond to that story are real.

4. No gods exist, and none of the creation stories are true.

The first and second of these are logical impossibilities. The universe we live in came into being somehow, but it could only have happened once, and therefore more than one creation by more than one god or set of gods cannot possibly have occurred. The bible says that god created the universe from nothing over the course of seven days. The ancient Egyptians believed that a being called Atum rose from the chaotic waters of nothingness, and masturbated out the next two gods, Shu and Tefnut, who then came together to create other gods and all of the universe. Hinduism claims that creation is cyclical, with creation following destruction following creation, continuing for trillions of years, with each cycle lasting approximately four and a half billion years.

The differences in these, and many, many others, show that there cannot have been more than one creator or beginning, and this is a concept that theists and atheists agree on.

The real question of the beginning of the universe rests in the third and fourth options, and indeed, basically everyone believes in one of the other. How can we differentiate fact from fantasy?

It is, of course, possible that one god is real and the rest are false. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Christian god is the one true god. This presents a problem, as it means that every Muslim, every Hindu, every Jain or Aztec, must inevitably go to hell for breaking commandment number one, which prohibits the worship of any other gods. But the same is true if the word of Allah is true, in which case every human ever born who did not worship Allah is a heretic and must therefore be punished. What if Zeus and the gods of ancient Greece are the real ones? I’ve never worshipped Zeus, and I highly doubt you have either.

You are an atheist with respect to virtually every god ever worshipped by anyone. How can you be so sure that yours is the true god? And to take it one step further, many religions state that a lack of worship towards their particular deity is the quickest ticket to hell (or some equally monstrous place). If the majority of religions have a version of hell, and only one of them is real, you have a far greater statistical chance of being wrong and going to that one true hell than of being right and being sent to the one true heaven.

The most logical answer is that none of them are real, and that they represent the different worldviews of different cultures from different times. It is not surprising that we have had so many gods; humans naturally seek answers, we tend to personify nature to better understand it, and we are storytellers. Is it so farfetched that these three aspects of who we are would converge?

Why don’t we believe?

Quite simply, theists have never given us a reason why we should believe.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. If I told you I had a magical invisible unicorn tap-dancing on my head right now, it is quite likely that you would not believe me, and you would be justified in your non-belief. Why?

The claim that I have a unicorn on my head is an extraordinary one, and it would require extraordinary evidence. Maybe I do have a unicorn, or maybe not, but you are justified in not believing it until I provide you with some evidence. Certainly you wouldn’t believe me on my word.

It is my duty to prove to you that I do have one, and it is certainly not your duty to prove that I don’t. If I cannot give you that evidence, you would not believe me. This is called the burden of proof. The person who makes an assertion is the one who has to back it up. We use this logic in every aspect of our lives, and it can be applied to any extraordinary claim. What if I told you I can throw a baseball five kilometres? I would have to prove to you that I am capable of that act. You’re perfectly justified in not believing it until I show you, and you would have no obligation to prove that I can’t.

This argument applies to god as well. The theist claims that an omniscient, omnipotent deity watches everything everyone does, all the time, and not only that, is angered by us masturbating and eating bacon (hopefully not at the same time). You didn’t have to prove that I couldn’t throw a baseball five kilometres, why do I have to prove that your god doesn’t exist? It’s not my burden to prove anything.

I know that theists have an answer to this, and it’s usually something along the lines of, ‘Have you ever seen a tree, or a smiling baby, or a rainbow? What other evidence do you need?’ Umm, sorry. Just because beauty exists, doesn’t automatically mean that god is responsible for it. Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t, but unfortunately for that argument, the existence of a thing is proof that it exists; it is not proof for whatever you happen to think is the cause of its existence.

Some common statements being thrown around are that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in a god, and that to not believe in a god is itself a leap of faith. This is just not true, for the reasons above. Does it take more faith to disbelieve in my tap-dancing unicorn than it does to believe in it?

Morality

The ten commandments

Before you start to read this next section, put the book down and see how many of the ten commandments you know by heart.

How many did you know? If religion and/or atheism have only recently become of interest to you, I’m going to guess that you could only think of three of them (not trying to underestimate you, but for most people, there are only three that stand out as memorable). If you’re planning on educating yourself on religion, and Christianity in particular, then understanding the ten commandments is a great first step.

What are the ten commandments? (Exodus 20:2-17)

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not create any graven image of the Earth, of the heavens above, nor of the oceans below.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain.

4. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy.

5. Thou shalt honor thy Father and thy Mother.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his livestock, nor any of his possessions.

God allegedly meant for them to be in descending order of severity, but you’ll see that that isn’t really the case. The first four are ridiculous, and based completely on god’s ego. The next four are pretty good standards to live your life by, and the last two each warrant their own categories, for reasons you’ll soon see.

#1 – THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!!

Wait…what? I thought there was only one god. He’s worried about us worshipping other gods? Ok, maybe he’s talking about false gods, but it doesn’t matter, because this has nothing to do with morality, and actually is quite immoral because it is forbidding freedom of religion, a right that every Christian espouses anytime a secular group protests prayers in school. Freedom of, and from, religion is a basic human right.

Punishment – Death. More precisely, genocide, as there are multiple instances in the bible of god destroying whole cities for breaking this holiest of laws. Some people get to be spared though: the virgin females, so they can be raped and made into captive wives. (Deuteronomy 2:33-34)

#2 – THOU SHALT NOT CREATE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE!!

This one can be–and is—interpreted in a number of different ways, because it is somewhat vague. Some believe it means that no art whatsoever may be created, because a human creation would symbolically narrow the gap between the ‘god the creator’/’man the creation’ dynamic, with ‘man the creator’ as the intermediary.

Others think that it refers specifically to idols, statues and paintings of god himself. Because he is perfect in every way, no idol could ever come close to portraying even a sliver of his greatness, and would therefore be displeasing, or even offensive to god.

No matter how you look at it though, there is nothing moral about this commandment. It stifles people’s creativity, an act that is itself immoral.

Punishment – Genocide again. Pretty harsh. Kind of like wiping out an entire extended family because the pre-schooler tried to draw a picture of you. (Numbers 21:34-35)

#3 --THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE LORD’S NAME IN VAIN!!

Jesus Shitballs Tapdancing Christ.

Aaaaand, I’m going to hell.

That’s all it takes. I could lead the most decent, moral, virtuous, sin-free life, and the simple act of typing that sentence would send me to hell. Well, if I was a practicing Christian, surely I could repent and be forgiven, right?

Nope. This sin is unpardonable and unforgivable (Mark 3:28–29). So whatever you do, watch your mouth! Curse god once, just once in your whole life, and you have no chance of repentance. Freedom of speech is one of the rights we treasure most in our modern world, but apparently god didn’t think so highly of it.

Punishment—You get off easy for this one. Death by stoning, but your family and the rest of your city will be ok. (Leviticus 24:16)

#4 – THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH!!

I’ve got nothing wrong with this one, personally. A divinely-commanded mandatory day off from everything but relaxing, every week? Sign me up!

Unfortunately, if you do have some stuff to do on the weekend, you’d better get it done on Friday (Different denominations of Christianity and Judaism disagree whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday). You may have heard the story where a man is caught gathering sticks for firewood on the Sabbath, and is consequently stoned to death (Numbers 15:32). Killing a person by repeated blunt trauma because he needed some firewood to keep his house warm doesn’t sound too moral to me.

Punishment: It bears repeating. Death by stoning. For getting off your ass and doing something productive on the weekend. (Exodus 31:14)

#5 – THOU SHALT HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER!!

Obviously, this is one that we can all generally agree with. Your parents conceived you, raised you, fed you, and took care of you when you were young. For many people, this one is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we weren’t all brought up in loving, nurturing households. Many parents neglect their children, spending too much time working or drinking. We can’t all be fit to be parents, and many people who are not ready or responsible enough to have children, do.

How are these children supposed to react if they witness their Father beating up on their Mother? What if it happens repeatedly throughout their childhood? It is reasonable for that child to grow up feeling no honour, pride or respect for the Father. What if the child knows his parent to be a vicious criminal?

As we can see, this commandment is certainly a good one to live by…. In most situations.

Punishment: Death, though it’s not specified how (Exodus 21:15).

#6 –THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!

One of my favourite reactions from a theist is when I bring up the ten commandments in a discussion, and tell them that I don’t think they constitute good rules to live your life by. Inevitably, 100% of the time, their reply is, “Oh, so you think it’s ok to kill and steal!?” It’s always the first to come up, because many Christians have no idea what the other ones even are (this is a good time to ask them to name the rest of the commandments; Not many can.).

Of course it’s not ok to kill. Prohibition from killing another human being is one of the few rules that seem to have been in place in every civilization across time. It’s never, ever a good thing. However, it can sometimes be justified.

The hypothetical instances when killing someone is ok are not difficult to imagine. Any situation involving a physical attack against you could reasonably warrant fighting back against your attacker. I’m only speculating here, but I also imagine that the vast majority of us would only fight back with the same intensity as the attacker was coming at us. If some guy wanted to beat me up, and violence was unavoidable, I would have no qualms about kicking his ass hard enough that he wouldn’t come back at me. Would I try to kill him? No. Would I try to put him in the hospital? Of course not. What I would do is help him up after, if I thought he had calmed down and would accept my hand.

But let’s say you are accosted by a man with a knife. In the street, an alley, or even in your own home. The survival instinct kicks in and forces you to act. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, very few of us would choose the second option. You would kill your attacker, and you would not be an evil person for it.

Punishment: The punishment for breaking this commandment isn’t explicitly stated, except in Genesis 4:15, where god states that anyone who kills Cain should be avenged sevenfold—which is slightly confusing. Should that person be killed seven times? We can reasonably extrapolate this to mean death is the punishment for all murders, which is kind of hilarious. I would hope that the executioners were exempt from this law for their 40-hour workweek, otherwise the executioner would kill a criminal, and he would then have to be executed for his crime, by someone who would then have to be executed for his crime… so it goes.

#7: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY!!

Cheating on your spouse (or boyfriend/girlfriend, for that matter) is a pretty shitty thing to do. Getting married is a huge step in a person’s life, and before tying that knot, you should be very certain that this person is the one you want to spend the rest of your life with. Nevertheless, sometimes a couple can fall out of love, and adultery is something we have to deal with. Some people cheat on their spouses, always have, and probably always will. Not that I’m condoning it here, but it is a fact that we should accept.

The funny thing about this law is that in the new testament, Jesus redefines it to the following: Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Adultery apparently doesn’t even need to be acted upon. Just looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery. It sure is a good thing Christians have an easy way out, because otherwise there wouldn’t be too many men in heaven.

Punishment: What else? Kill his ass! (Leviticus 20:10)

#8: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!!

This is the fourth of the basically good laws. I don’t have much to say about this one, as it follows the same ideas as the previous three, in that it is a generally good rule to follow for the benefit of society, but there are a lot of grey-area situations. If you need a medication, offer to pay for it, but the person who has it refuses to sell it to you (assuming they don’t need it for themselves)? There’s nothing morally wrong with stealing in this scenario.

Punishment: Depends on the situation. In some cases, the thief must pay a fine or become a slave of the victim of his theft (Exodus 22:1-3). If the thief steals a slave, the punishment is death (Exodus 21:16).

#9: THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR!!

This commandment stands apart from the rest, as it is the only one that I would include on a list, if I were to make my own ten commandments for humanity to follow. It is morally correct, and I think our own justice system tries to follow it as often as possible.

If you see your neighbour (or brother, or sister, or friend) commit a crime against another person, and you are asked to testify against that person, the only answer is yes. Morally reprehensible actions demand justice, and it doesn’t matter if the criminal is friend or enemy. It is your duty to make sure that justice is properly served, even if it means dishonouring your Mother or Father (whoops, guess sometimes you have to break some laws to uphold others!)

The reverse point of this commandment, is that if you know a person to be innocent of a crime they have been accused of, it is your moral duty to stand up for the person, be they friend or enemy. If your shitty neighbour is always yelling at you to keep your dog off his lawn (you don’t have a dog) and calling the cops to break up your raucous parties (Sorry officer, but I was just watching Predator, guess it was kinda loud), and he gets accused of committing some crime that you know he didn’t do, it’s still your duty to testify in his favour.

Punishment: Despisement and scorn (Proverbs 12:8). I love how the only truly moral commandment bears the least punishment.

#10: THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOURS STUFF!!

This commandment is telling us that it is a sin to want something that someone else has. The bible names a few things you’re not allowed to want, examples being someone else’s wife, house, slaves, farm animals (Oxen and asses, actually), or anything else.

The major problem with this one is that you don’t even have to actually do anything to break this rule, all you have to do is want it. In your head. Yes, Orwell would be proud of this one: thought-crime is a sin. This is quite possibly the most immoral of all the commandments, as it implies that you can be punished with eternal torture for simply having an envious thought. Though jealousy and envy are surely not good emotions to harbour, they can lead to ambition and perseverance to achieve goals. The entire capitalist system is based on breaking this commandment.

Missing from the ten commandments

If we, as a society, were to create a list of new commandments to follow, what are some laws that might be on the list that were somehow omitted from god’s top ten? Just a few ideas:

-Thou shalt not rape.

-Thou shalt not own another human being as property.

-Thou shalt not abuse children physically, mentally, emotionally or otherwise.

-Thou shalt not limit another’s freedoms or rights based on who they are (gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc.).

-Thou shalt not limit another’s intelligence, talent, creativity, or expression of love.

-Thou shalt not limit another’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or freedom of assembly.

Can we all agree that these are somewhat more moral than what the bible seems to preach, namely the exact same wording as the above additional commandments, phrased as ‘thou shalt,’ rather than ‘thou shalt not’?

Logical reason why god is not such a nice guy

First, god created the angels. Then Satan betrayed god. God subsequently created hell, and sent Satan and his buddies there.

Why didn’t he create them in such a way that they wouldn’t betray him? When they did betray him, why didn’t he just blink them out of existence? Creating hell to confine Lucifer and the devils doesn’t seem like the nicest thing to do, considering he has ultimate power and could deal with the issue in any possible way. Of all possible options, he chose the one that would cause Satan to suffer the most.

Then, god created man. Fundamentalists won’t concede to this fact (believing the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old), but we know that our species emerged between 250,000 and 100,000 years ago. Let’s assume it’s the lower figure, simply for argument’s sake. He placed us around the globe and gave us many gifts, one of which was free will. By being geographically separated, and by utilizing the gift of free will that god gave us, we developed many different religions around the globe.

A few thousand years ago, god decided to give man a book. In this book, he outlined exactly how man should live. He dictated what rules to abide by and the appropriate punishment to be meted out for breaking those rules. Death is a very common punishment for many offences. It is said that the laws are eternal, from beginning to end. Rule number one is, “thou shalt have no other god before me.”

Unfortunately for mankind, we had been on Earth for tens of thousands of years by that time. All of the poor souls who had been worshipping gods other than him had been sent to hell for breaking a law they couldn’t have known existed, and which had no influence on their treatment of each other.

In the years since the rules were handed down, we have continued breaking that first rule simply because of the fact that our god-given free will and geographical separation will naturally conjure different gods within different cultures. It seems the vast majority of humans on this planet, all over the world and throughout history, have been sent to hell for not worshipping the Christian god, despite his being the engineer of their law-breaking.

Now, keep in mind that I haven’t yet mentioned his omniscience. He knows the past, present and future. He knew beforehand that Satan and his cohorts would betray him, and that he would create a place of eternal torture for them. He knew that mankind would sin just by using the free-will that he had given us. He knew he would then be obliged to send us to a place of eternal torture.

Also keep that in mind – eternal torture. Infinite punishment for a finite crime. The most heinous crimes a person could commit could not possibly warrant infinite incarceration, never mind torture.

He knew all of this before he even created us. He knows who is going to heaven, and who will suffer forever.

Oh, and we’re his children.

Does our morality come from god?

Here’s an easy argument to use when confronted with this question.

If you are asked where you, as an atheist, get your morality from, answer their question with one of these questions, or something to the same effect.

If you believed god was telling you to kill me right now, would you?

If god told you to punch a pregnant woman in the gut, would you?

If god told you to rape a young child, would you?

The theist will always respond with, “There’s no way that would ever happen, because it’s not in his nature. God is love and beauty and truth and blah de blah blah.” There are dozens of examples from the bible you could cite as to why you think it most certainly is in his nature, but the most effective is the story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:5).

In this story, god commands Abraham to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, to prove that he truly loved/feared god. Abraham grabs his son, ties him up on an altar, and is about to kill him, when one of god’s angels comes down and stops Abraham just in time, because he proved his faith.

Here is where you can show a theist that it absolutely is within god’s character to command the terrible acts in the questions above. God commanded Abraham to kill his son to prove his faith; why wouldn’t he command you to kill me, or even your own child, to prove yours?

If they accept the possibility of their god making a command such as this (but don’t hold your breath), they will likely then bring up how god stopping Abraham from doing it proved his love for Abraham. You can make an argument that just the act of commanding a murder makes it evil, but I usually just allow them that point.

Fine, for the sake of argument, let’s say that god loved Abraham, and was never going to make him go through with it. That doesn’t change the facts that Abraham believed god wanted him to murder his own son, that Abraham completely considered it within god’s character to make that command, and that he was just about to do it.

So, we have established that god may make such a command, and that at least once, the receiver of the order was ready and willing to obey.

Which begs the question once more: What would you do?

Don’t let them sidestep the question here, because we’ve reached the crux of the argument. Make them answer it honestly. If they say that yes, they would murder their child and trust that god’s word is infallible…. Well, this person is clearly psychotic and you should back away slowly. Don’t make eye contact.

If they say no, they wouldn’t be able to, then why not? The answer is simple: We all have our own set of morals that we have learned from being social, group-oriented animals. Most of us are good, decent people, who would never dream of hurting a child or raping someone. Our morality does not require a belief in any god. I am an atheist, and I am a good person. I help people who need it and I always prefer making a person smile to making them frown. I’m sure you are the same.

Where do you get your morality from, if not from the bible?

This is a simple one: I get my morality from being human. Most people (masochists excluded) prefer pleasure to pain. We prefer happiness to sadness, and we prefer life to death. Not only that, we understand that basically everyone else agrees, and prefers the same things we do. In essence, the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is a really good way to live life, and again, we all understand that fact, though we may or may not adhere to it all the time. (Side note: I realize that Jesus quoted the golden rule, and it certainly is one of the truly morally upstanding things he said. It is also a great piece of advice that came from Confucius, several hundred years before Jesus came along.)

This ideal is an evolutionary trait that has been passed on, both biologically and socially, for hundreds of generations. I am a moral person, and yet I do not get any of my morality from the bible. Think about the moral progress we have made in the last hundred or so years. Women gained the right to vote (aka, be acknowledged as legal citizens) in 1916 in Canada, and 1920 in the US. Does that equate well to the bible’s view of women, that they must keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34)? That daughters can be sold as slaves (Exodus 21:7), and that a married rape victim is punished to death by stoning if she doesn’t cry out (Deuteronomy 22:23)? No, it does not. By the way, the punishment is a little different if she is a virgin. That lucky lady has to marry her rapist (that’s actually his punishment), and her new husband has to pay her Father fifty shekels.

The new testament, however, certainly does exhibit a marked increase in women’s rights. There are examples of women holding jobs, and being allowed to speak in a group of men. Remember though, that Jesus said himself that not a jot or tittle of old testament law had changed, nor would ever change (Matthew 5:18). So either Jesus was wrong and someone had swapped a jot or two for a handful of tittles, or women’s rights actually had changed according to an increasing social morality.

What about the increase in tolerance to other races? Slavery in the United States was abolished by Abraham Lincoln right after the civil war, which started in response to Lincoln’s election. Why did the southern, Christian, Confederate states oppose Lincoln so badly? Because he wanted to abolish slavery, which the Christians believed was their god-given right.

Granted, Martin Luther King Jr. was a southern Baptist, and obviously played an enormous role in the progress of racial equality, and was no doubt a man of great and sincere faith. He was also a member of the oppressed group, not the oppressors, which makes a significant difference if the theist uses MLK as an argument for Christian love and tolerance.

One of the main problems with thinking that your morality is derived from the bible, is that every single Christian out there breaks god’s rules in some way. They think that they live biblically, but the bible laid out so many rules to follow (many of them being ridiculous), that in our modern age it is completely unrealistic to live exactly as the bible teaches. Theists pick and choose which morals to live by. If they’re already accepting some while disregarding others, it shows that they too derive their morals from their upbringing and their environment, not from the bible.

Can religion be harmful?

The answer is yes, for many different reasons.

If hell is real, it is literally the definition of the worst place the human mind can possibly imagine. Excruciating torture and paralyzing fear for all of eternity. And for many centuries, religions have been teaching children that if they are sceptical about their god’s existence, that’s where they will end up. The church has been teaching children not to think for themselves, but to accept blindly what they are told or be punished infinitely. This is child abuse of the highest degree, teaching children to not think, and to fear some intangible being that supposedly loves them, under penalty of eternal torture.

What about the teachings of the catholic church in Africa, that condoms are worse than AIDS? What about the dozens, if not hundreds, of sex abuse scandals occurring in churches around the world, and the church’s practice of protecting and relocating these predators? If it weren’t for the church’s view on chastity, a great many of these incidents would never have happened, as the priests would have the possibility of getting married, and therefore let out their sexual desires in a more consensual, appropriate manner.

What about the Islamic teachings of jihad, that a Muslim who dies while inflicting death on non-Muslims will go straight to heaven? What about the Mormon teachings that interracial marriage is an abomination?

These are but a few of the ways that religious teachings harm society.

Living Levitically: rules from Leviticus even Christians break

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (Leviticus 19:19)

The first two parts of this verse aren’t really applicable to many of us anymore, as they prohibit us from interbreeding two different types of cattle, or sowing a field with two different seeds. Forbidding the interbreeding of cows, though not exactly logical, kind of makes sense within the ideology of the bible, given than god really didn’t like any kind of procreative experimentation (think gay and interracial marriage). The second one makes a bit less sense; if I throw pea seeds and carrot seeds into the same field, they’re going to grow side by side, not create some kind of weird pea-carrot hybrid (a parrot?).

The third part of this verse is what really makes the least sense, at least in modern times. In essence, you can’t wear any clothing that is made from both linen and wool. Huh? That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule for the ruler of the universe to make. There also weren’t many options for fabric back in those days, so it’s hard to say if a nice poly-cotton blend would offend the lord’s fashion sensibilities or not. Either way, be careful when you go bargain shopping.

When a woman has a discharge, and it consists of blood from her body, she will be unclean because of her menstruation for seven days. Everyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. Anything she lies on during her menstruation will become unclean, and anything she sits on will become unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-20)

Don’t touch women if they’re on the rag, especially in the morning, because you’re going to have to wait all fricking day before the grossness washes off. Also, don’t let her sit in your favourite chair, or you’re going to have to throw it out (or put it on craigslist; pretty much par for the course).

You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: (Leviticus 19:28)

This one is pretty self-explanatory, and especially hilarious because of the number of people who show their devotion to Christ by getting his face tattooed on their rippling triceps.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:10)

But lobster is delicious! And, as a sidenote, seaweed is technically a living thing which is in the water. Is seaweed forbidden too? Sushi will never be the same.

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. (Leviticus 19:27)

This verse is basically saying you shouldn’t get yourself a bowl cut, but modern fashion sense kind of says the same thing (sorry, Ringo). This is from the King James version of the bible, but other versions say that you shall not trim your hair or beard at all. It does kind of make sense; after all, who wouldn’t look good with their mullet and beard tucked into their pants? I know I would.

Now, it seems pretty obvious that all of the above laws are completely useless in the 21st century. Everyone cuts their hair, tattoos are so common that parents give their daughters tramp-stamp gift certificates for their 18th birthdays, and come on, what wedding is complete without a good shrimp cocktail?

So why is all of this important? Because this next verse happens to be from Leviticus 18:22: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This verse is the theist’s number one argument against homosexuality. I’ll talk more about this verse later, but let’s leave it for now with this in mind. If you disregard so many of god’s laws from Leviticus, why is this the one that theists cannot let go of?

Does absolute morality exist?

The presence of different sets of values and ethics around the world is one piece of evidence that if absolute morality does exist, we humans certainly haven’t figured it out yet.

Here’s a good question to ask a theist if they claim that god’s moral authority is absolute: Is an act objectively moral because god says it is, or does god say it is because it is objectively moral?

If they agree with the second statement, that god says it’s moral because it is moral, then congratulations, both of you are right! If this is the case, then absolute morality does indeed exist. Unfortunately for the theist’s argument, however, that would mean that god is just the messenger of this absolute morality, and we can, through reason and discussion, come to the same moral conclusions on our own. God becomes an unnecessary middleman.

On the other hand, if they tell you that any act that god says is moral automatically is, you can use the situation of Abraham and Isaac, which I mentioned above. You can also point out that if everything god commands is inherently moral just because he commanded it, then morality is just one step removed from our subjective assessment, to his subjective assessment. If it’s ultimately his decision what is right and wrong, and he is a sentient being, then it necessarily follows that it must be subjective.

Now, all that being said, are there any actions one could perform that are absolutely and always moral, or absolutely and always immoral? I mentioned above that commandment number nine (Thou shalt not bear false witness) is a good example of a law that is absolutely moral. I personally think that slavery would be the opposite, an act which is always, irrefutably immoral. Owning another human being as property has always been immoral and always will be, despite the fact that the authors of the bible thought it was perfectly acceptable and said so many times, even laying out guidelines as to how severely you are allowed to beat your slaves, and how much a man may charge to sell his daughter into slavery.

Hitchens’ challenge

The late, great Christopher Hitchens offered a prize to anyone who could come up with a moral act, gesture or statement that a theist could do or say, but that an atheist could not. Until the day he died, the prize went untaken.

Anything moral a theist can do, an atheist can also do. There are many Christian groups that feed the homeless, organize street cleanups and volunteer for a variety of worthwhile causes. There are also many secular and/or atheist groups that do the same (though admittedly not in the same number; there aren’t nearly as many of us!). Believers and non-believers alike can cheer up a friend, adopt an abused pet, or buy lunch for someone who can’t afford to buy it themselves.

Occasionally a theist will try to argue that praising and worshipping god is the most moral thing a person can do, case closed. Unfortunately, the act of loving god does nothing for anyone other than yourself. When we discuss morality, doesn’t it necessarily assume that the health or happiness of another living thing must be part of the equation? There is nothing immoral about smashing a rock with a hammer, but that changes when someone else is brought into the picture. What if you were smashing the rock on your sleeping friend’s face with a hammer? What if it wasn’t hurting him, but it was your friend’s favourite rock (some heirloom or gift)? The morality of the act now comes into question. It is for this reason that worshipping god cannot be considered a ‘moral’ act that atheists can’t do.

But what about the reversal of the original challenge? Is there any morally wrong act or statement that a theist would do or say, that an atheist would not?

You probably didn’t have to think too long to get an example or two. Suicide bombings are what most people think of first and foremost. The vast majority (close to 100%) of suicide bombers of the last 30 years have been religious, and most of those committed their crimes specifically because of their religious upbringings. What about missionaries in Africa teaching people that condoms cause AIDS? What about female circumcision, which often involves mutilating the genitals in the attempt to saw off the clitoris? What about male circumcision for that matter, and the traditional Jewish method of having the rabbi literally slurp the blood off the baby’s penis (occasionally transmitting herpes to the infant, resulting in the child’s death)? What about discrimination of the GLBT community? What about teaching millions upon millions of children over the ages, that beliefs are more important than acts, and that if they believe the wrong thing, they will be tortured forever?

The number of immoral acts believers do that atheists don’t is extensive. But are there any immoral acts that atheists can do, that a theist would be incapable of?

Ummmm… not believing in God, I guess?

Science and Society

How does theism correlate to quality of life?

It has been shown in numerous studies that there is a direct negative correlation between belief in gods and quality of life, and a corresponding positive correlation between atheism and quality of life. Here is a list of countries that have the lowest percentage of citizens with a belief in a god or gods.

Japan

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

Czech Republic

France

Norway

Netherlands

Estonia

Canada

New Zealand

There is a strong correlation between quality of life and high percentages of irreligiosity within a country. Five of the top ten countries on the UN’s HDI (Human Development Index) are among the least religious countries, as well as seven of the countries with the lowest levels of poverty.

This is not to say that that lack of religious belief necessarily causes higher quality of life. Causation and correlation are obviously not the same thing, but it is still an interesting observation. There are many other factors that consistently correlate to high levels of non-belief, including low rates of infant mortality, violent crime, sexual crime, and teen pregnancy, as well as longer average life spans, high rates of education and gender equality. There is a wealth of information supporting these figures on various websites around the internet. Rather than including long lists for comparisons, I urge you to research this information for yourself (a search for quality-of-life index, Human Development Index, and the UN website would be a good start).

The big bang (Cosmological argument)

What came before the big bang? To tell you the truth, I don’t know. But guess what? Neither do you. No one knows what happened before the big bang, although scientists are getting closer and closer to finding out. The idea of there being a First Cause—an event, thing or being that has always existed—was first put forward by Plato. Could a god or set of gods be the First Cause? Of course it’s a possibility. Could the big bang be the First Cause? Equally as possible, although when I say that, I mean that they each have a 50% chance of being right, and a 50% chance of being wrong. I do not mean that god and the big bang are a dichotomy, of which one must be true and the other must not be.

Could there have been anything before the big bang? Sure, why not? The short answer is that currently, we have no definite answer as to what actually got the universal ball rolling.

The problem with the First Cause argument is that it requires no cause of its own. This is one of the first questions every child will come up with on his or her own. Who created god?

Theists will always ask this question of the big bang. Also, what happened before the big bang? How did it happen? How could nothing explode and become everything? Why don’t you know?

These are difficult questions that, as I just mentioned, we are studying and coming ever closer to figuring out (though in truth, we may never find the real answer). But if this question can be asked of the big bang, it is equally as reasonable to ask it of god. Where did he come from? What came before him? How did he create a whole fricking universe out of nothing? The answer from theists is always the same. Nothing came before him, nothing created him. Why? Because he’s god, you silly atheist! He doesn’t reside in this reality, so he doesn’t need to fit the universal parameters of physics and reality.

Sorry theists, that explanation just doesn’t cut it. If you’re going to use this argument, you have to be prepared to answer when the question is directed back at your own beliefs.

What’s wrong with just saying, I don’t know?

Evolution

For this section, I’m not going to go through evolution and natural selection step by step to make a case for them, because though I have studied a fair amount and know a good deal about them, you’d be better off picking up a book on evolution to learn more about how it works (I suggest Richard Dawkins book, “The Greatest Show on Earth”). This is not a book about science and I am no scientist, but I will give a few examples of arguments I’ve heard and responses you can use with anyone who denies the reality of evolution.

If people came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

If someone says this to you, it is pretty apparent that they don’t have a clue how evolution works. We did not come from monkeys. No matter how many times you explain this to people, there will always be more to come and pose this idiotic question again and again.

We did not evolve from monkeys, nor from apes. Apes are our closest evolutionary cousins, and consist of orangutans, bonobos, gorillas and our closest relative, the chimpanzee. You didn’t come from your cousin, did you? Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor, but like two branches growing from the same tree trunk, we evolved in our own ways and became our own separate species.

If you are ever asked this question by someone who truly thinks that evolution suggests we came from monkeys, just ask them this: If the first Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

How could the human body have become so perfect if it wasn’t created by god?

Are you kidding me? I’ve heard this one so many times, and it’s one of the few arguments that even fundamentalists will backtrack from once you give them a few valid reasons to.

The human body is far from perfect. There are an incredible number of things about us that are not even efficient, never mind perfect.

For example, if I were to create a perfect being, a part of my design might be separate holes for eating and breathing. You know, because of that whole choking thing. Another hole for talking would be nice too. Can you imagine if we could eat, breathe and talk all at once?

And why wouldn’t god have given us these separate orifices? He gave them to dolphins and whales, which eat with their mouths and breathe through blowholes. Obviously it’s possible, and seeing as dolphins and whales are mammals, they are actually very close evolutionary relatives of ours.

Our five senses are pretty incredible, I wouldn’t dispute that for a second. However, we don’t see nearly as well as eagles, which can spot a mouse darting across a field from three miles up. We also can’t see infrared, like many insects can. Sharks can smell their prey from miles away, and dogs’ hearing range is vastly greater than ours.

It seems that a physically perfect or near-perfect being might have senses that could outperform at least those of the lowest forms of life on its planet.

But what about our intelligence? Ah, here is where we as humans shine. Our intellect is what sets us apart from the rest of the species on Earth. There is, however, a hypothetical issue to consider: the difference in our DNA from that of a chimpanzee is less that 1%, and yet even our pre-schoolers are far, far more intelligent than even the smartest of chimps. What if an alien species were to make themselves known to us, and it was discovered that their DNA differed from ours by the same amount as ours differ from the chimps? That difference would be astronomical, to the point that they would regard us merely as interesting creatures to study and perform tests on.

Irreducible complexity: What good is half an eye, or half a wing?

The concept of irreducible complexity states that within complex creatures are complex parts, and that the animal would not be able to function (and therefore survive) if its parts were any less complex than they are. The human eye and the wings of flying creatures are often used as the basis for this argument.

Irreducible complexity has been shot down over and over again, and the argument itself does not hold any water. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the current function of the referred-to body part (eye, wing, whatever) is the only possible function. If my eye consisted of nothing more than a patch of photosensitive cells that could tell me nothing more than if it is dark or bright, would that be as useful as the eye I currently have? Of course not, but it would be more useful than no eye at all; at least I could know when it was day and when it was night. What about if that patch of cells were located in a recession in my face? Well, now that patch of cells would more easily be able to differentiate the direction any light was coming from. What if that patch of cells then developed a primitive lens? I would then be able to focus the light coming into my eye, and have a rudimentary sense of depth.

This process could continue until I have the eye that humans possess today. Each of those steps the eye had to take are not as effective for seeing as the one they precede, but they are certainly more useful than the ones that precede them. None of them would ‘see’ in the way that I can see, but that does not mean that they would have no function whatsoever.

Vestigial body parts

Have you ever had an appendectomy? The only current function of the appendix is to explode without warning, spewing grossness out into the body cavity, which will then kill the victim if left untreated. What kind of a creator would keep such a thing in the body?

Did you know that the human body is filled with bits and pieces that no longer serve any function? The appendix is the most widely known example, but we also have the remnants of a third eyelid that used to sweep dust off the lens of the eye (it’s that little pink triangle in the corner). We each still have a coccyx, which sounds a bit like a dirty word but is the medical name for the tailbone, because yup, we used to have tails. Also on the list of useless body parts: the subclavius muscle (useful for walking on all fours), extrinsic ear muscles (for pointing the ears in the direction of a sound; people who can wiggle their ears still retain control over these muscles), and wisdom teeth (from when our diets consisted mainly of plant material, which require more grinding than meat). If we were created in god’s own image, then that would mean that he had all of these weird little pieces as well. Less than perfectly efficient equals less than perfect.

All relevant scientific fields point to the reality of evolution

This is the most persuasive argument I can think of for the evidence for the reality of evolution, the fact that there are many fields that can study and verify (and potentially falsify) the theory through different means. Four of these areas of study that complement each other nicely are geology, paleontology, biology and geography.

Geology is concerned with rock, studying the layers of the Earth, and measuring the ages of the different layers. They do this by radiometric dating of the rock at different layers. In a nutshell, radiometric dating works like this: When a volcano goes off and lava spews out, that lava is eventually going to cool down and solidify, and that moment is when the rock is ‘born,’ so to speak.

Different elements in the rock decay at a particular speed, called a half-life. A half-life is the time it takes for the amount of an element in a rock to decrease by half. When an atom of an element decays, it becomes another, different element by losing electrons. One example of this is uranium-235, which has a half-life of 700 million years, and which becomes lead-207 when it decays. By comparing the amount of each element in a given rock, we can determine its age. This method is verifiable with a number of different techniques, and independent scientists consistently come to the same conclusions, so we can therefore be confident that we know the age of the Earth, or at the very least the age of the topmost layers of it.

If we know the ages of the layers of the Earth, then we can date when the fossils found in those rock layers were still living, breathing creatures. By carefully comparing the fossils found, paleontologists have discovered a time-map of life on this planet through the strata of dirt and rock. We know when the dinosaurs came to be, because we find no dinosaur remains in the Paleozoic era (540 million years ago to 250 million years ago), but only invertebrates, fish and amphibians (in that order from the deepest). Then in the Mesozoic age (250 million to 65 million years ago), we start finding dinosaur bones, but still no mammals. Then finally, In the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago to present day), we find no more dinosaurs, but many mammal species, including early hominids and ourselves.

Evolutionary biologists can look at the DNA, as well as the physical makeup, of different animals and see how they are related. They can also look at the fossils of long-dead animals to observe similarities and differences between extinct species and living species. This is one of the ways we know that birds are the modern relatives of dinosaurs, not reptiles, as we thought for a long time.

Geography also verifies evolution, as we have numerous cases of animals that exist in one geographically isolated area, but nowhere else in the world. The Galapagos islands, where Darwin first came up with his theory of natural selection, is a great example. Another is the existence of marsupials (kangaroos, koalas etc.) in Australia, but nowhere else on Earth. Why is this the case? Because millions of years ago, after the evolution of mammals, the continent of Australia broke off from Asia and the mammals there evolved in a manner totally different from mammals in other continents.

Evolution is not some grand conspiracy perpetrated by scientists, as many theists somehow believe. Evolution is reality, and it is supported by many different fields of science. One of the great things about science that many people seem to misunderstand, is that scientific theories change over time because we learn more and more about our environment, not because they are inconsistent. As we discover more, our understanding of things adapts, and hypotheses that are proven wrong are thrown out. Is it possible for evolution to be wrong? Of course. All it would take would be one rabbit fossil found in a Mesozoic layer of Earth, but any discovery that discredits evolution has yet to be found.

The brain and the soul

The question of whether or not the soul exists has been debated for centuries, and is one of the key elements in theistic belief. In order to ascend to some heavenly realm after death, there must be some intangible part of our being that survives death. The concept of a soul is present in virtually every religion, as is the idea that after we die, it must go someplace that is appropriate to the life lived. In the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, the options are heaven for those who have led a faithful life, and hell for those who have not. Christianity has only recently disposed of the possible third option of purgatory or limbo, which was reserved for the souls of unbaptized babies. Hindus differ in that they believe in reincarnation; that is, after death, the soul is moved from the body of the deceased into a new body.

But is there any evidence that the soul exists? In Christianity, when a person dies and their soul goes to heaven, it is generally thought that they are reunited with their deceased family members, and live a new, eternal life. Advances in neuroscience have helped us to understand the nature of the brain and how it functions, and these discoveries do not help the argument for the existence of the soul.

For example, we have numerous cases of patients who have suffered various brain injuries which resulted in fascinating (though often traumatizing) consequences. When parts of the brain are injured, a person can lose their short-term or long-term memory. They can have enormous changes in personality or even develop a second, completely different personality. They can lose their sense of sight (even if the eyes are functioning perfectly), develop linguistic deficiencies or spatial disorientation. Remember that every aspect of our intellect is controlled by the brain, and every part of who we are is located in different parts of the brain.

So if it has been shown that trauma to a certain area results in the loss of facial recognition, language ability, mobility, personality, or emotional control, then how can we assume that after death (aka. a complete loss of all brain function), all of those faculties and abilities will somehow remain joined together, functioning perfectly? As Sam Harris beautifully put it, what makes you think you will enter heaven speaking English and recognizing Grandma?

Other ridiculous ‘scientific’ things in the bible

Bats are birds!

And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind;  every raven after its kind,  the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. (Leviticus 11:13-19).

This one doesn’t really prove anything except that the people didn’t really know anything about science, and the fact that they thought bats are birds is something you can bring up if a theist ever tries to tell you that the authors of the bible were scientifically knowledgeable.

Light before the sun?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (Genesis 1:3-5).

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (Genesis 1:16-18)

You may notice, from the above two passages, that on the first day, god created light. Then he created the water and plants on days 2 and 3, and on the fourth day, he created the sun, moon and stars. Huh? How did light come before the sun? Many apologists have tried to explain this away by saying things like, ‘light doesn’t have to come just from the sun. Haven’t you ever seen a firefly?’ This is not an explanation. We’re talking about the beginning of everything, and besides that, fireflies weren’t created until the next day anyway.

Unicorns!

God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn (Numbers 23:22).

I’m just glad that the bible and I agree on something: unicorns are real, and they are awesomely strong.

God and Faith

Pascal’s wager

Blaise Pascal famously made an argument for belief in god that many theists still use, and I admit that to anyone with a theistic worldview, it does make a lot of sense. The first time I heard someone mention Pascal’s wager, I had a hard time figuring out a way to refute it, and had to do an internet search for the reasoning of people much more educated on the subject than myself.

Pascal’s Wager goes along these lines. Either god exists, or he does not exist. God says that belief in him will guarantee an eternity of bliss, and a failure to believe in him will result in an eternity of torment.

So if one believes in god and is correct, he is rewarded with eternal happiness. If he is wrong and there is no god, he loses nothing, as his death will be final.

On the other hand, if one does not believe in god, and is correct, he gains nothing. If he is incorrect and god does in fact exist, his punishment will be eternal torture.

The argument then goes, that with nothing to gain and everything to lose, the obvious choice would be to believe in god. On the surface, this is a pretty solid argument. Why would anyone bet against god under these circumstances?

The answer is surprisingly simple. For one thing, one cannot fake a belief in god. If god were real and omniscient, he would know that your belief was contrived. You cannot force yourself to believe something just because of the potential consequences, and you cannot fake your way into heaven. Also, the idea that there is no cost if you incorrectly believe in god is wrong. If you spend your entire life worshipping god, then you die and there is no afterlife, it means every minute you spent worshipping him was wasted time in the only life you have.

As well, Pascal’s wager ignores the possibility of any other god being the true god, and therefore other heavens and others hells. What if Hinduism is the ‘correct’ religion, and you spent your life in reverence of Allah?

The last point to make here is that the argument presupposes that belief is more important than actions, which is a common thread in at Christianity. If I live a good life, die, and am asked by god at the pearly gates why I didn’t believe in him, what will I say? I will tell him that he gave me the gift of intelligence and rational thought, and I thought it would have been a damned shame to waste it believing in something I could find no evidence for.

Why is faith a good thing?

Faith is what you use to justify a belief when there is no evidence to support your belief. Not counting religion, when else do you hear people use the term, “you’ve just got to have faith?” Do you tell your friend to have faith that his favourite basketball team is going to win, if they are up by 40 points with a minute left? Of course not, because there is evidence that they are going to win. What about if they are down by a large margin with time dwindling? Well, then you might tell him to have faith, because the evidence is not pointing to a win.

What about when your child sprains his finger, and asks if he’ll ever play the piano again? You don’t tell him to have faith that he will, nor do you tell him that you have faith. You answer with ‘Of course!” because a sprained finger is a very minor injury, and there is no doubt that he will be back in piano-playing shape in no time. But what if he suffers some terrible accident that completely mangles both of his arms? That’s when you might tell him you have faith in his piano future. Why? Because the evidence is pointing to the contrary. Now, this is not to say that you should never give positive, hopeful, inspiring messages to people, because obviously we want to support the hopes of our loved ones as best we can. All I’m illustrating here is the way faith is used in daily discourse.

Religious faith is similar to these situations. When I ask a theist why or how they believe in god, the answer is always, you’ve just got to have some faith. If you read between the lines, what they are saying (and occasionally they will fully admit), is that they don’t have a rational reason to believe in god, but that they are looking past that fact. Faith is what’s important, not evidence.

This is hypocritical of them, because there are very, very few instances in life when you will take anything on faith without evidence. If a stranger told you that your husband or wife was cheating on you, would you take their claim on faith, or would you investigate to find out the truth? What if you got a call tomorrow that said you won 10 million dollars, and all you had to do was provide your credit card number to receive it? You would most likely hang up, even though there is, potentially, a chance that the claim is true. Without evidence of some kind, you wouldn’t believe it at all.

You might say that we all have faith in certain things, and theists will often tell me that I have faith in my friends, in my doctors, in my neighbours. It is not faith that I have in these people, it is trust, and it has been earned. If my friend tells me she will do something for me, I have previous experiences of this person following through on her promises, so I have good reasons to believe she will help me. If I go to a doctor whom I have never met, why would I trust this person? Because I have been to other doctors before who have helped me, I understand that medical school takes great study and thoroughness, and I trust in our educational system that trained our doctors.

In all of these instances, I have reasons to ‘have faith’ in these people, based on previous evidence.

The problem with faith is that it teaches people that it’s ok to not need evidence, or even worse, to look past and disregard evidence when it is presented to you. Why do so many people still disbelieve evolution? Because if evolution is true, then many of their religious teachings become invalid. They have so much faith in what they have been taught in churches, mosques and synagogues that to accept the evidence for evolution would mean admitting the errors of their religious upbringing.

This is harmful in so many ways. Religious institutions are teaching people from a very young age that it is not just ok, but virtuous, to accept extraordinary claims without evidence, and to disregard any evidence that contradicts those claims.

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the evil one?

This is a serious question.

In the bible, god himself killed approximately 400,000 people, and ordered the deaths of many, many more. Just a few examples of the larger numbers would be when he ordered 120,000 Midianite soldiers to kill each other (Judges 8:10), when he sent a plague to kill 70,000 men as punishment for David’s census (2 Samuel 24:13), when he delivered 100,000 Syrians to the Israelites to be slaughtered, then made a wall fall and crush the 27,000 Syrians that escaped (1 Kings 20:28-30). As I said, these are but a few examples of some of the larger genocides god either performed himself or commanded, and there are dozens of instances of him killing people for quite inane reasons, such as when god sent two bears to kill 42 children, because they had made fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). In all, the total number of countable people killed directly or indirectly by god comes to around 2.2 million.

By the way, not included in this number are those killed in atrocities such as the flood that Noah built the ark for and the decimation of Sodom and Gomorrah, for which no actual numbers are given. Considering the great flood was supposed to have wiped out all of humanity minus Noah and his family, it’s safe to say that the grand total is a hell of a lot higher.

What about Satan though? He is supposed to be the king of evil, spreading filth and sin all around the world. How many people did he kill in the bible?

The answer is 10. In the entire bible, both old and new testament, Satan kills a grand total of ten people, compared to god’s two million plus. The ten people are Job’s seven sons and three daughters, and it is actually at god’s consent (Job 1:1-19). So even to kill the few people that he did, he still had to have god’s ok.

Also, chew on this for a while: if god created us, then he likely would have created us to think whatever he wanted us to think, just like when we create machines or computer programs, we create them in the way that we want them to work. So really, god could be the evil one, but he designed us to think he was the good one, no matter what he does.

How do you know god is more powerful than satan?

Think about it logically. If you created something (a machine, a computer program, a painting), and there was some other external factor that was screwing it up, wouldn’t you want to eliminate that thing? There’s a reason computer programmers try to ‘work out the bugs.’ They don’t want to release a program that has flaws, they want to create the best product they can. If we are god’s creation, and the devil is ruining us through temptation and sin, don’t you think god would just get rid of satan?

Sure, you could argue that he would be taking away our free will. With Satan out of the picture, however, we would still have the free will we currently have to make the right or wrong choices, but without the extra push the devil gives us to commit sin. So why doesn’t he just get rid of him?

God loves you!

And that’s why he’ll send you to hell.

Ok, I guess I’m being a little dramatic; he’ll only send you to hell for breaking his rules, the first of which is to not love him. Doesn’t that seem a little harsh? If your child broke your rules, of course you should punish them accordingly. If your child commits a crime—let’s say he murders someone – it’s your duty to make sure justice is served, no matter how hard it would be to testify against your child and send them to jail.

But is there any crime your child could do, no matter how heinous, that would make you think that torturing them was an appropriate punishment? Of course not. In essence, that’s exactly what god is doing; if you break his rules (which include cursing him and not loving him), he’s going to lock you up in the basement and torture you, forever. Thanks Dad!

Now, Here’s one of the major issues of the Christian idea of god’s love for us. A true Christian has the possibility for forgiveness and redemption, because god loves us completely, right? If anyone (read: any believer) can be forgiven, this entails that all sins can be forgiven, except the sin of not believing in him.

With this in mind, it becomes apparent that a Christian can commit any sin, any crime, any atrocity, and as long as they sincerely and truly repent, their sins are forgiven and they can go to heaven. One could go on a mass murdering spree, then hit up the confession booth on the way home and enjoy the fruits of heaven forever.

On the other hand, an atheist, Hindu or Buddhist, who has lived a life of love and selflessness, is automatically destined for hell, simply for not believing in god. I cannot imagine a system less set up for justice than this.

The Character of Jesus

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

Outside of the bible? None.

Or at least there are no contemporary extrabiblical accounts of Jesus. If you are debating a theist, and they tell you that they know of any contemporary account of Jesus, they either have some incredible source that they’ve been hiding from the world, or they have no idea what they’re talking about.

The earliest non-biblical account of Jesus as a real, living human being comes from Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian who was born in 37 AD. There are a few points to consider here: firstly, he was born after Jesus died. That means that he likely did not begin studying or writing about Jesus until at least twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Imagine if the earliest known mention of John Lennon came out in the year 2000, by someone born in 1981 (Lennon died in 1980). How credible would we consider the source? Not very.

The other major point to make about Josephus is that in his writing he does mention Jesus by name, but he does not attribute any miracles, resurrection or other supernatural powers to him. So really, the bible is the only source of information saying that Jesus was anything other than a regular guy.

By that logic, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Odysseus (from Homer’s The Odyssey) was a real soldier, and that he actually had encounters with the Cyclops, the sirens, Circe the witch, and the marine monsters Scylla and Charybdis. After all, one single book said it was true, so why can’t it be?

Jesus’ sacrifice was no sacrifice

First of all, it has not been proven that Jesus himself ever even existed, but let’s forget that point for now, and say that yes, he was a real person, and yes, he died on the cross 2000 years ago.

Christians believe that he died for our sins, and that by letting himself be killed, he saved us all. But what kind of a sacrifice did he really make?

We need to take a look at the character of Jesus first. There is some debate, even between Christians, whether he was literally god incarnate or just god’s son. This aspect can muddle the debate a little bit.

If this point comes up in a discussion, ask the theist, what exactly did Jesus sacrifice? The answer of course, is his body, his life. If Jesus was actually god in human form, then really, there was no sacrifice involved. God created the entire universe, our planet, and all life that has ever existed on Earth. It’s not really a sacrifice to give up something if you have the power and the means to create an infinite number of that thing. Is it a sacrifice for me to give a single penny to a homeless person I meet on the street? Not really, because I have a decent job, I make several hundred thousand pennies every month, and will likely do so for the next thirty-odd years. However, the number of pennies I will make in my career is finite; the number of lives god can create is, by god’s very definition, infinite. I am therefore making a bigger sacrifice by giving away that one penny than god is making by allowing Jesus to be killed.

But let’s say that Jesus was just god’s son, as some Christians believe, and not the actual physical embodiment of god himself. Does that change anything? Can Jesus’ death be considered more of a sacrifice in this instance, or even a sacrifice at all?

An act can only be sacrificial if something is lost, but to take it a bit farther, the thing that is lost must be greater than anything else that might consequently be gained. To come back to the analogy of the homeless man, the penny that I give him is certainly not a sacrifice if I am rewarded with a dollar for doing so. Likewise, putting in an extra hour at work on Friday afternoon is not a sacrifice if my boss then tells me that I’ll get two weeks paid vacation in exchange for that hour.

So how does this relate to Jesus’ sacrifice? Well, for one thing, he was dead for three days, then rose from the dead. That’s not much of a sacrifice, if you get back exactly what you lost. But not only that, after he was resurrected, he was brought up to the kingdom of heaven to rule beside god forever.

Let’s just go through that one more time, for the sake of emphasis: He lost his life, was subsequently given his life back, and was then rewarded for his ‘sacrifice’ with a seat in the most perfect, beautiful place one can possibly imagine, second in command only to his Father, to rule over the entire universe, for the rest of eternity. Yeah, real big sacrifice.

I gave my lunch to the same homeless guy the other day. I was really, really hungry for the rest of the day, at least until I got home and made dinner. That evening, Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver (in case you’re not aware, two of the most accomplished and celebrated chefs in the world) knocked on my door and told me that, on account of my good deed, they would be cooking every meal for me, every day, for the rest of my life. Oh, and on top of that, I’m never going to die. Giving up my lunch to the homeless dude doesn’t seem like such a sacrifice in retrospect.

Jesus wasn’t quite the just, peaceful guy you think he was...

What makes a person good? In general, and some may disagree with me, I think a good person tends to do as much to help others as possible, and as little to harm others as possible. When speaking of Jesus, Christians usually say that he is the epitome of justice, kindness and peace; a morally perfect human being. There are, however, some things he said and did that don’t quite follow that insinuation so well.

For example, many of us have heard the story of the woman who was being chased down the street by some soldiers and fell down at Jesus’ feet (John 8:2-11). The soldiers claimed that she was an adulteress, and not only that, had been caught red-handed. Jesus then uttered one of his famous lines, ‘he who has not sinned may throw the first stone.’ This now-common saying implies that we have all done wrong at some point and should therefore not condemn others too quickly. The morality of this statement is good, and the lesson is correct. But one of the ten commandments states thou shalt not commit adultery, and clearly this woman did. By the law of the day, she should have been stoned to death along with her lover.

We have to remember a few things here; Jesus is either god incarnate, or he is the son of god, depending on which denomination you adhere to. God made the law, and Jesus even said that old testament laws shall not be changed. He is supposed to perfectly just, and yet neglects to uphold his own (or his Father’s) law, just because the woman fell at his feet and begged? Whether what he did was morally correct or not (and that can be argued), it certainly was not just.

Another reason this action was not just, was because he forgave the woman and let her walk away. Now, I don’t personally think anyone should be stoned to death for adultery, but don’t you think the woman’s husband might like to have a say in whether or not his wife is pardoned of her crime? He was the one who was wronged, and likely the one who caught his wife in bed with another man.

Imagine if someone stole your TV, and the police were chasing the thief down the street. The thief falls at the feet of some stranger. The stranger then forgives the thief for stealing your TV, and tsk-tsks the police for trying to catch him (because come on, we’ve all stolen something at some point). I’d be more than a little pissed, especially if the stranger claimed he had the authority to forgive the thief because he was the son of god.

One last note on Jesus’ supposed benevolence. In Luke 19:27, Jesus says “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” This is the kind of statement that a good person would not make. If you are supposed to be the epitome of love and kindness, you’d think that you’d refrain from saying such hateful, violent things. Now, this is not to take away from the many good, kind things that he did say. Jesus certainly taught many exemplary moral lessons, and assuming he actually existed, the majority of his teachings were good ideas to follow. But imagine a person who does volunteer work, donates blood, helps old ladies cross the street, then goes home and writes misogynistic hate messages to women and minorities. Is he a good person or not? I would argue that a single blatantly immoral action or statement dictates your actual morality. By commanding that his enemies be brought to him and slain before him, Jesus compromised his entire moral standing.

The Supernatural

What constitutes a miracle?

People have different ideas of miracles. Some people think that any really rare event would be considered a miracle, while other people reserve the term for truly incredible events. There must be a line drawn somewhere though; if I win the lottery tomorrow, is that a miracle? It’s approximately a one in 18,000,000 chance, so it certainly would be considered an extremely rare event, and it is quite likely that it will never happen (I’m still hoping though!). But even if I never win, someone wins every week. Because of this fact, most people would not consider winning the lottery to be a miracle.

What would be a good example? Imagine if there was a plane crash, or a terrorist attack, or some other horrific catastrophe, and the only survivor was an infant, with not a single scratch or injury. Many people would claim that to be a miracle; indeed, most news articles would probably proclaim it in bold headlines.

There are a few problems with this though. If that child surviving is a miracle, it would necessarily mean that god saved the child. Why was he saved? More importantly, why were the other people involved in the disaster not saved? Apparently god thought that the life of this infant was more important than the lives of the people who did not survive.

Now imagine the same scenario, but change one simple factor; the lone survivor was not an infant. Maybe it was an elderly lady with terminal cancer. Maybe it was a murderer escaping trial. Maybe it was just an average Joe, who will go on to live the rest of his life in unextraordinary obscurity. Is it still a miracle? It should be, if this person was not only the lone survivor, but also came out unscathed. But it would not be reported the same, nor would there be as many people claiming the hand of god had touched this person. In the case of the escaping murderer, it would be seen as a tragedy that the only survivor was a criminal.

There is one factor that is common with all claims of miracles. It is that the event in question is always in the favour of the person calling it a miracle. A murderer surviving a plane crash is not a miracle. A baby falling from the third floor of a building and surviving is a miracle, whereas a baby dying by falling down a short flight of stairs is a tragedy. The chances of either happening are equally rare, but the death of a child is never something a person would hope for, and therefore could not be deemed a miracle.

When I tell a theist that I don’t believe that miracles happen, they usually respond with a personal anecdote. “Well, my Mother/Father/friend/whoever had cancer, and we prayed and prayed, and he/she got better! How do you explain that?”

Pretty easily. Some people die from cancer, and some people don’t. I suppose there are four possibilities we can break this down into:

1. A theist with cancer goes into remission.

2. A theist with cancer dies.

3. An atheist with cancer goes into remission.

4. An atheist with cancer dies.

What do you think is the breakdown of the likelihoods of these possibilities? Two people, one a believer and one a non-believer, will have exactly the same chances of surviving cancer (all else being equal, of course: stage of the disease, amounts/kinds of treatment, family support, etc.), and the exact same chance of not surviving it. When a theist survives this horrible disease, it is attributed to the prayers, and when they do not survive it, well, god works in mysterious ways – assuming the person is young. If they are elderly, the response is, “well, it was just his/her time.”

In discussing the power of prayer, you will hear dozens of stories of people who believed in god, got cancer, prayed to god, and miraculously survived. The funny thing is, what you will never hear is a story about someone who believed in god, lost a limb, prayed to god, and miraculously regrew that limb. What? God doesn’t love amputees as much as cancer patients? Why not?

The answer is simple. The human body can and does neutralize cancerous cells. Not always, not even usually, but it can happen. The human body cannot regrow a missing arm, or leg, or finger, or penis, no matter how hard the person prays.

Do miracles occur?

A miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature, or of reality itself. Statues do not cry blood, people do not walk on water, the lame do not suddenly stand up and dance, and people cannot be resurrected from the dead. If any of these things were to happen, then it truly would be a miracle, aka. a suspension of the natural laws.

So when a miracle supposedly occurs, what are the chances that it actually happened? Christopher Hitchens put it very well in a debate against William Lane Craig. He said, if I saw a man executed yesterday, and I saw him walking down the street today, which is more likely: that he actually rose from the dead, or that I was deluded in my observations, either when I thought I saw him executed, or when I saw him walking down the street? Maybe it was a prank or maybe my eyes deceived me. The same can be said of all such miracles. What is more likely, that the laws of nature were temporarily suspended (in my favour), or that I was mistaken in what I thought I saw?

Concerning the miracles of the bibles, the same can be said, except that these were miracles that we didn’t even get the chance to see, rather they allegedly happened thousands of years ago. So the question must again be asked: Did they really happen, or was there some kind of misunderstanding/exaggeration/mistranslation somewhere along the way?

The virgin birth of Jesus is a perfect example. Either it was a miracle, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, what are the possibilities? Maybe she simply wasn’t a virgin; after all, she was Joseph’s wife. Maybe, because the prophecies of the old testament predicted the saviour to be born of a virgin, the writers of the new testament just fabricated this ‘fact’. Maybe there is truth in the allegation that the word used in ancient Hebrew to describe Mary actually meant ‘young maiden,’ not ‘virgin,’ as many people believe. So can it be said that an actual virgin birth (which has never, ever been medically documented anywhere) occurred, when these other, more realistic, possibilities exist?

The arrogance of ‘answered’ prayers

People pray for a lot of different things. Some people pray for their loved ones to get better, some pray for a better job, or more money, or for world peace. If you pray to do well in your job interview and get that new job, and then you do, yay! God heard and answered your prayers. Then you pray for Tim Tebow to play really well on Sunday, and he does. Wow, god must really love you (and Tebow, obviously), to answer not one, but two prayers in the same day!

Unfortunately, though he answered your prayers, he declined to answer the prayers of millions of people around the world who would just like an extra handful of rice, a drink of water that doesn’t have poop floating in it, or to not get malaria today. Those prayers will go unanswered, as will the prayers of the person who didn’t get that great new job (because you did), or the thousands of people supporting the team that Tebow was playing against.

To think that god loves you personally is incredibly arrogant, because of the above reasons. If every prayer was answered, okay, then it would be a different story. But for every prayer that is answered, millions more are not, and the truly sad thing is that those unanswered prayers will be chalked up to god’s mysterious ways, rather than the possibility that those millions of people are just talking to themselves, asking for help that will never come.

What would make me believe?

I’ve been asked this question numerous times, and given it a lot of thought. There are two miracles that would make me sincerely believe in a god, be it the Abrahamic god, the Egyptian gods or any other.

Miracle #1: If I was going about my day, when all of a sudden I heard a voice in my head that said something along the following lines: “Hey there (my name)! So, I’ve gotten pretty sick of all of this confusion and arguing, so I just decided to make it all very clear. I am (insert appropriate deity here), and I’m just letting you know that I am, in fact, very real. To prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, from this moment forward, I’m going to use my omnipotence to end all suffering, hunger, disease, inequality, and violence, forever. I hope now you’ll believe in me. Thanks!”

Now, my first reaction would be to assume I was losing my mind, but if I then talked to some friends who heard the same thing, and watched the news to learn that everyone on Earth had received the same message, and that all types of suffering had indeed come to a halt, I would have no choice but to become a believer.

Miracle #2: The other miracle that would make me believe would be if I woke up one morning and all of a sudden believed. This might sound like bizarre logic, but let me explain.

One argument against the power of prayer is to ask a theist to pray for your conversion. If god is omnipotent, and really, really wants me to believe in him, well, he could do it in a second. So if that was what he truly wanted, he would just do it and that would be the end of it. I would be a believer. This has not happened yet.

Sex

Onto everyone’s favourite topic. The three main monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have been forcing themselves into the bedroom for a very long time. Religion is horrified with the idea of sex for any reason other than procreation. Premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, masturbation, contraception and abortion are all issues that the church despises and fights at all costs. Unfortunately for all of us, theists refuse to accept the idea that perspectives can change over time, and they feel that the rules made thousands of years ago are still relevant today, which they absolutely are not. Let’s take a look at some ways to argue with theists who think you’re doomed to eternal torture for wearing a jimmy, loving someone the same gender as you, or tugging one out.

Homosexuality and gay marriage

This is one of the biggest issues of our generation. The fight that GLBT people have had to put up with has been going on for decades, and still there are a large number of people out there who think homosexuality is a disgusting sin, an abomination in the eyes of god.

What are some of the reasons they give for battling so determinedly against homosexuality?

It’s not natural.

Hate to tell you this, but homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 different species, and well-documented in over 500. There are some species where homosexuality is actually quite common. For example, with bonobos (one of our closest evolutionary relatives), female-on-female sexual activity makes up over 50% of all sexual activity within the species. In sheep, approximately 10% of all rams will choose to mate with another ram, even when the nearby females are in heat. Other species in which homosexuality is well-documented are giraffes, hyenas, vultures, penguins, dragonflies, and even bed bugs.

It happens in nature, people, and it happens a lot. Stop saying it’s not natural.

The point of marriage is to have children. Gays can’t have children, so they shouldn’t get married.

First of all, the point of marriage is not to have children. The point of getting married is to commit yourself to the person you love, and want to be with for the rest of your life.

But let’s forget that for the sake of argument, and say that the theists are right; that marriage is, first and foremost, for the sake of procreation. Then it goes without saying that all sterile men and infertile women should not be allowed to get married. Why should they? They can’t have kids, and therefore should not have the right to marriage.

What about elderly women who have long since gone through menopause? If an 80-year old woman falls in love and wants to get married, are theists saying that she should not be allowed to because she can’t have children? Of course that’s not what they mean. The bible says homosexuality is an abomination, so they use whatever reasons they can to make sure gay marriage doesn’t happen.

You would allow other people who can’t have children to get married. You can’t use this argument against gays and lesbians if it doesn’t hold true for everyone.

If we start letting gay people get married, the next thing you know people will be marrying children, their dogs and their refrigerators.

Seriously, if this is your argument against gay marriage, my only advice to you is to start thinking with your brain instead of your bible. The church defines marriage as a union between two consenting adults of opposite sexes. All gay marriage would do is change it to two consenting adults, regardless of sex.

Will gay marriage open the gate to the logical next step: marrying children? No. Why? There are only three words involved in a proper marriage. Two. Consenting. Adults. Children are not adults. Which, by the way, isn’t even important in many Islamic countries around the world, as grown men marry teenage (or even pre-teen) girls all the time.

What about marrying my dog? Will I be able to marry my dog? Honestly, I don’t really care if that’s your thing, but something tells me the dog wouldn’t really fit into that ‘consenting’ part. And what about my fridge or toaster? Yeah, same deal goes. Unless you’ve got some futuristic AI fridge that understands your marriage proposal, thinks it through and accepts, it doesn’t really fit the consenting aspect either. Also, you know, they’re machines.

Contraception

The bible doesn’t actually have much to say on the topic, and a lot of the Christian opposition to contraception stems from Genesis, the first section of the old testament, where god said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth.” For one thing, that’s what we’ve been doing, and having seven billion people on the planet isn’t really helping things. Of course, god supposedly said this when there were less than a billion people on the planet, so there was a bit more room for us.

The argument against contraception comes from the church’s stern opinion that sex is meant for one reason only: procreation. It would be one thing if the church were simply teaching people to control their urges, but this is not the case. The current pope has actually threatened to excommunicate any priest in Africa who advocates condom use in areas where AIDS and HIV are rampant. This is not only grossly irresponsible, but horribly immoral as well. In some areas, the only education the people get is from catholic missionaries, and they are often taught misinformation, such as that condoms actually cause HIV. I realize I’ve mentioned this situation several times already, but in my mind it is one of the most horrifyingly immoral views the church holds, and needs to be dealt with immediately.

In recent news, many states in the USA are starting to take away women’s reproductive rights, to the point that companies are allowed to fire female employees if it is discovered that they use any form of birth control. This view is despicable, and harmful to women and the population at large.

Abortion

This topic has been another huge one in recent years. The main point here is that those who are against abortion call themselves pro-life, and this is an appropriate title. However, those who support a woman’s right to have an abortion are not called pro-death, or pro-abortion; they are called pro-choice, because choice is the issue. Pro-choicers do not think abortion is a good thing per se, they think that a woman should not be denied the option of having an abortion if the pregnancy is undesired. Some of the reasons for this would be if the pregnancy is the result of a rape, if the woman is financially or mentally unable to provide a child with the life it needs and deserves, or if the Mother is still a child herself.

The opposition to abortion is interesting, because Christianity opposes pre-marital sex, despite the fact that sexual desire is innate in virtually all of us, whether we are married or not. They oppose contraception, which helps to eliminate the need for the aborting of unwanted fetuses. In essence, they believe that sex is dirty and shameful, and constitutes an act that should only be done for procreation.

Conclusion

I would be lying if I said religious institutions had done nothing good for humanity; this is obviously not the case, as they certainly provide many selfless services to the needy and a sense of community to their respective in-groups, and helped early civilizations formulate the right questions and contemplate possible answers to the mysteries of life and our surroundings. But they have outlived their usefulness, and it is time for society as a whole to realize this. The advantages of religious belief are no longer valid; we can grow and progress without religion far more effectively now than we can with it. It has become a hindrance to civilization, holding us back and convincing too many people that we would be lost without faith.

This is not the case. A secular society based on reason and discussion is far superior to one based on superstition and fear.

If you considered yourself an atheist when you started reading this, I hope I have given you some concepts and ideas to think about, and to formulate your own arguments. If you had a belief in a god or gods when you began, I doubt I have convinced you to change your beliefs, but I hope that you now have a better idea of why atheists think the way they do. Continue this thought process; I’m confident that if you keep an open mind, you’ll eventually come to the same conclusion that in this day and age, religious belief is no longer necessary, and it is time to change our notions about what is important, and what is real.

Table of Contents

Copyright

Introduction

Atheism in a nutshell

What is an atheist, and what do we believe?

Atheism is not a religion

We’re all atheists

Why don’t we believe?

Morality

The ten commandments

Logical reason why god is not such a nice guy

Does our morality come from god?

Where do you get your morality from, if not from the bible?

Can religion be harmful?

Living Levitically: rules from Leviticus even Christians break

Does absolute morality exist?

Hitchens’ challenge

Science and Society

How does theism correlate to quality of life?

The big bang (Cosmological argument)

Evolution

The brain and the soul

Other ridiculous ‘scientific’ things in the bible

God and Faith

Pascal’s wager

Why is faith a good thing?

How do you know god is the good one, and satan is the evil one?

How do you know god is more powerful than satan?

God loves you!

The Character of Jesus

What evidence is there that Jesus existed?

Jesus’ sacrifice was no sacrifice

Jesus wasn’t quite the just, peaceful guy you think he was...

The Supernatural

What constitutes a miracle?

Do miracles occur?

The arrogance of ‘answered’ prayers

What would make me believe?

Sex

Homosexuality and gay marriage

Contraception

Abortion

Conclusion