Responses for
"Morality and Atheism"

Response from randy (Email withheld for their privacy)
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR ARTICLE.I WISH MORE PEOPLE SAW IT THIS WAY.

Response from Amy (Email withheld for their privacy)
I just wanted to say that I read your essay and I find it to be very influential and inspiring. I myself have harbored similiar beliefs. I was once asked by some aquaintances how I could believe in morality if I didn't believe in God. I answered very similarily to your response. For this reason I wanted to let you know that I find your site to be great! Keep up the good work. I hope to help people to escape (willingly) from the primitive belief systems that hold them from personal and philisophical enlightenment. The belief in a diety is, to me, a belief that helped early man to cope with his environment but is now outdated. I mean no offense to those locked within the chains of their socities particular docrtine, but I believe firmly that humans can be good or evil based on their conscience, not because of some divine intervention. Feel free to respond.

Response from Rob (Email withheld for their privacy)
NOTE: Due to the long, involved well thought out response this person sent, I am forgoing my usual style of placing my response at the end and will intermix it within his response. My comments will be in the italic form.

I just found your site yesterday while searching for info on the Electoral College. I responded there earlier today, and then noticed this page. I'm not going to read all the other responses, as most of them may be worthless expressions of bias.

I'd love to sit down with you and chat, but before we go anywhere, there are many terms we need to clear up. I won't expect to cover them all here, but here are some needful notes:

1. I'm a believer, but then, so are you. You would probably classify me as a Christian and/or a religious person because of my behavior. I do not call myself a Christian, though, and to me the term religion refers to a manifestation of one's beliefs, or even priorities. Ex: A person washes a car religiously, works out religiously, or goes to church religiously, etc.

As I've understood it, the term religion refers only toward manifestation of one's beliefs in/of deities and gods. The examples you provide are grammatical misusages much like terms such as "busy as a bee", or "dumb as an ox". Bees aren't always the busiest animal in the world, but we get the idea. Doing something "religiously" refers to doing it often and without fail. It has no real connection with whether that person is a believer or not.

2. As you pointed out, many wars have been fought in the 'name of religion'. So, religion, or even the name Christian means nothing to me, though Christian does designate non-Hindu, non-Buddhist, non-Jewish, etc. So let's forego those terms and stick to our beliefs.

3. Now, if there is no God, then what we believe, whether Atheist or not, does not matter, does it?

That is exactly the point of my philosophy. Reality is not changed by our beliefs. If our beliefs are incorrect, it has no effect on reality itself. We are simply acting on incorrect information and therefore, more likely to have incorrect actions. As an extreme example, if someone believes that all native Africans hate him personally and want to kill him, and that person learns that someone he works with is a native African, he is likely to make rash actions that will negatively affect his life (and other lives) because he acted on the unrealistic belief.

I mean, if the human is the highest authority, that fact negates the need to believe there is no authority higher than us, doesn't it? IF there is no God, whether I believe it or not doesn't matter, there IS no God. I am 'tops', whether I believe it or not; my behavior (religion) follows my beliefs.

You refer to "highest authority". I assume you mean in regards to the petty rules and decisions we make such as you must wear a seat belt or pay a fine. In that case, yes, we are. However, there are "universal laws" that we must obey otherwise our life is cut short. For example, the effects of the law of gravity will most likely kill us if we fall out of a plane. That's just a fact, God or no God.

I do not believe we are the highest authority or that there is a highest authority in terms of something consciously making rules the world must obey. I think that argument is flawed. That belief presupposes a higher importance than plants and other animals whether you believe in god or not. I believe we are simply another part of the natural world, no more important to this planet then the hyena or army ant. Human ego often doesn't allow this view. It's nicer to believe that some god created us with the intention of being better than anything else in the world.
However if you must have a "higher authority" than assume reality itself to be the ultimate ruler.

4. Similarly, if there is a God, that fact doesn't hinge on whether anyone believes it. IF there is a God, there IS a God, whether we believe it or not, right? (If your Atheism hinders you from agreeing, maybe I should word it thus, "IF there WAS a God, it wouldn't hinge. . .right?")

Again my personal philosophy suggests that this would be true. I have no problems agreeing with that argument.

Ok, now to morality. Your opening remarks might be summed up in the question, Does Atheism breed immorality?

OK, but that presupposes that religion breeds morality, which I maintain it does not.

I would follow that question with, Does the term morality refer to belief or behavior? In other words, is morality the cause of our behavior or the testimony of our belief? I'm going to let morality refer to our beliefs. Our behavior results from our morality.

In my Oxford Dictionary, morality is defined as "1 degree of conformity to moral principles; 2 right moral conduct;...". OK so what's moral? According to the same dictionary, "1 concerned with the distinction of right and wrong..." I think true belief (that which you believe in your heart, not just what you say) and behavior can't be separated.

So the answer to my first question is, NO! Not any more than would belief in any other false religion. (We'll get to that later.) Furthermore, I agree with your concept that, ". . .morality. . .comes. . .in your desire to be nice to others." I might ask, Upon what do YOU base that desire? The 'Golden Rule' perhaps? You implied as much later in your text.

My desire to be nice stems from the lessons learned in life from my parents and through observation and experimentation. When I was mean to someone, I was punished. I noticed people were rewarded for their good behavior, and so was I when I did the right things. My desire also comes from my observations that those that are nice are more respected and well received that known jerks. And, yes, I am a very big believer in The Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Your individual morality is fine, but what determines the morality of a society?

I think if the individual morality is taken care of, the society will be OK. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals and is not an entity to itself.

In some parts of the world it is considered moral (socially acceptable) for a male member of a family to kill a female member of that family if she is found to have had sex out of wedlock. Granted, this stems from the 'religion' of that region, but, is it moral? If there is no God, these people are the highest authority in their society and to them this is moral. If those religious people immigrated to our society, how would we deal with that situation. Remember, there is no God, so we individuals are the highest authority, therefore those individuals can practice their form of morality in our society and not be guilty of murder, right? No?

How do we deal with it today? This particular scenario is a sticky situation with or without religious overtones. It has no bearing on the atheism and morality issue.

But since you asked, here's my answer: When you go to another country, it's assumed that you will obey the laws of that area. Religious acts or not, if they interfere in the laws of the country you're in, you should not do it. "When in Rome...". If you don't like the rules and how they inhibit your beliefs, sail away, overrun the natives of another country and call it America.(Sorry. Sarcastic ending to an honest thought) I'm not kidding when I say if you don't like the rules, and can't change them, you must move elsewhere.

Then there must be some way of standardizing the morality (beliefs) of a given society. Do we all meet in a circle and agree to abide by the Golden Rule, or do we transmit our morality to others in another way? Are we going to write laws then to dictate the behavior of others based on our own morality? Can we legislate morality? No we can not. We can only punish behavior contrary to our laws. So how do we get these people to see that their actions, based on their morality (beliefs), is not acceptable in our society? How are we, as a society, to determine what is and is not moral behavior? Are government and the law your answer?

Again, the issue of how to teach and transmit morality is not connected to the issue in question since they can (and are) both be done outside religion. However, since you are asking, it must begin with the parents.

With government and laws we then establish a code of ethics by which we hope all in the society will abide. If they choose not to, and break our laws, if we can, we will punish them for their infraction. We do not need any religion, based on a belief in a God, to be moral because we have just created our own form of religion. Why do I say this? Because I am no longer the highest authority, government is, whether I believe it or not. We have created a god and placed that god over ourselves.

You keep looking for that highest authority. Question: Is it reasonable that some laws are based simply on the reality of our desire to not destroy our species? For example, if killing each other for no reason were morally allowed, given humankind's penchant for violence, our species would surely die. If stealing items that didn't belong to you were OK, we couldn't have a decent running culture and could never advance as we have. These rules aren't based on moral laws or some gods whim. They're based on the fact that if we did these actions on a large scale, we couldn't survive and prosper.

Yes, an Atheist can be moral, and most of them are. But Atheists, and others who do not believe God, do have a religion, and they impose that religion on me when they decree that government, civil and human rights, equality and tolerance, etc. have preference over my beliefs; not my actions, but my beliefs. I have an authority higher than government, and my actions, whether to obey the laws of government, or just to be nice to others, comes from the will of God, which is in me; not from the laws or "morality" of any other.

I (and other atheists) have a belief, not a religion. Again back to the dictionary. Belief is defined as "firm opinion;..." Religion is defined as "belief in a personal god or gods...". A religion is a specific type of belief just as a rose is a specific type of flower. Not all flowers are roses and not all beliefs are religions.

And just for the record, many religions have pushed their beliefs on others using violent, murderous means throughout history. (Manifest Destiny and the American Indians are a recent example) Why can't I push my beliefs using non-violent debates and discussions? Listen to my points with an open mind and if we disagree, I promise not to destroy your society. Hopefully we will both go away learning something more, and that's the important part for me.

What I mean is, if I'm racially biased, the laws affect my behavior, but do nothing to my beliefs. If I believe God, then my actions are a result of my beliefs and the laws mean nothing to me; my morality is within me. Those religious people that immigrated here may abide by the law of the land, but their beliefs may never change; don't have to. Are they immoral?

Finally, this may not be real clear to you in view of your experience with your 'religious' friends, however, bare in mind that most of the religious people you meet believe there is a God, but do not believe God. His existence does not rely on my belief; my belief only affects my relationship with Him and others. I treat others with tolerance, but the beliefs they profess may be immoral in my view.

You personally may be tolerant but, as we agreed on, many offending actions have occurred in the name of religion. It's an often used but poor argument when using personal accounts as examples of an entire group of people. Groups (I.E. religions) can't be judged by virtue of one or two members, but must be judged by the actions of the group as a whole. As an example, I'm sure there were 1 or 2 nazi soldiers that were personally nice and even moral, outside their military duties. However this doesn't change the fact that the group as a whole was ruthless, dangerous and deadly to many groups of people. You, personally may be tolerant, but historically religions as a whole have not been.

Likewise, they may act moral, but does this make them moral?

If a person acts moral they are, be definition, moral. Ghandi himself housed the occasional angry, violent thought, but chose another method. It is his actions and spoken words we admire and call moral.

With no God, morality then is relevant; each individual and society sets their own.

With the existence of God, belief of anything other than God is immoral. Then follows the discussion about who's God is the real God. We need not venture there today, but there is only one truth, right? I mean, two things can not be in opposition to each other and both be true. Either the universe is expanding, contracting or standing still; I'm for it, against it, or don't care; you are pregnant or you are not; we'll cross that bridge or we won't.

I believe morality is relevant with or without religion. Thus this article.

Thanks for the space and patience to respond here, and I thank God for the time we have together. Rob.

I enjoyed your arguments and comments. I think we can learn a lot from each other, and I hope others can submit well thought out responses such as this. It's not fun to get responses like "You suck. You're going to hell." Nobody learns anything new and time is wasted. Thanks again, Rob. -JR

Response from Joshua Miller (Email withheld for their privacy)
I agree that all Athiests are not bad people, just grossly incorrect on their assumption that MAN is the ultimate force. How can you look at the intricate perfection of this beautiful and glorious world, and convince yourself that it's all just some cosmic mishap. You know, as Albert Camus would say - you validate the existance of God by your rebellion against him. Everything in nature has an opposite. Good, evil, right, wrong - it's a constant and neverending force of nature. Athiesm is akin to not believing in flies. You can preach it all you want, but the rest of us see your error as plain as day.

My Reply: Actually, it was an old Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and God made everything else revolve around us. Galileo was imprisioned for pointing out this was wrong. Atheists, at least I, don't think people are the ultimate force. I think we are a very small part of a greater whole no more important to this universe than any dog or flower. It is Christian faiths that are often guilty of the assumption you charge us with. As for the fly, it is a physical item we can see, whereas a nonexistent God is not. As for Albert Camus, does that mean Unicorns, Dragons and other Monsters are validated by your rebellion against them? - JR

Response from Joshua Miller (Email withheld for their privacy)
NOTE: For this response, I will once again intermix my comments within this response due to the long, involved response this person sent. My comments will be in the italic form.

In your response you wrote, "Actually, it was an old Christian belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and God made everything else revolve around us." This is absolute and utter garbage. This wasn't a "Christian" belief, this was the GENERAL belief and it stems from something called the Egocentric Perdicament - this transcends religion and belief as it is human instinct. Only when science began to point out this flaw was Galileo persecuted - not because it was against GOD, but because it was against popular belief and more importantly - against the king. The king is a man and is prone to flaw. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Earth is the center of the universe or anything even REMOTELY similar.

Actually it was the church that persecuted Galileo (and the others that held the same belief at the time) I offer this quote for memory sake:

"In 1616 (Galileo) received a formal warning that the theory was contrary to the teachings of the church. ...Nearly 342 years (after his death), Galileo was pardoned by Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic church finally accepted his teachings."

Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1994, 1995 Compton’s NewMedia, Inc.

So was the church acting on behalf of God or the King? (If you state the church was acting on behalf of God, you destroy your argument. If you state the church was acting on behalf of The King, you state in a public forum a heavy blow against the church.)

You seem to want to blame everything on God, which leads me to believe that you proabably have some deeper emotional problem with God and are rebelling against him in reaction to some event in your life.

Do I blame everything on God? Let's see. Let's look at my publicly accessible articles:

• Ethics in Advertising: I don't place any blame on God here.
• Dynamic Websites and Search Engines: This is just an article about search engines. Nothing about God here.
• Case for the Electoral College: I place no blame on God here either.
• The Real Problem with Napster Lawsuits: Do I blame religion here? No.
• The Internet vs. The Law: No talks of God here.
• MP3's and Hacks are Good for Business: My most controversial article. No mention of God here.
• Views on Racism: A topic often mixed with religion, but I place no blame here either.
• Should juvenile offenders get the death penalty?: Do I blame God here? Again, Nope.
• How Do We Stop Child Violence?: One of my personal best articles so far. (In terms of responses) I don't blame religion or God during this one either.
• Would You Marry a Multi-Millionaire?: Not much to do with God.
• Save Hundreds on Cellular Phones: Should I try to blame God on losing money? I think not.
• Should barbers go online: Self-explanatory here.
• Morality and Atheism: Well, gee. This seems to be the only article that remotely supports your hypothesis about my character.

Before attacking my character, please do some more research and find out more about me. You'll find me to be quite an ethical fellow who simply does not believe in God and wrote an article stating that ethics and morals is possible without religious belief.

I also think it humorous that you scoff at the words of Camus - one of the most famous atheists in recent philosophy.

I have never read Camus. I simply disagreed with the quote you offered earlier. I don't have to respect a person to agree with any particular statement and more than I have to hate them in order to disagree. I highly respect and admire Albert Einstein, but disagreed with him when he said: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are just details."

Camus himself (in his book The Rebel) states that rebellion against a force is either due to psychological issues or actual physical dissent against action.

Is this true for rebellion against Communism, or the rebellion the founders of America undertook as well? When two factions rebel against each other, is this only because of "psychological issues or actual physical dissent against action"? Camus' point, or at least your quotation of it, presupposes that all forces should be followed.

Let's face it, you can't really rebel against something that doesn't exist.

Hypothetical situation: Suppose I create an Idol of a God consisting of a three legged arachnid creature with a green rose growing from its left big toenail and a planet the size of Jupiter growing from its back. This God supposedly sings every 13.45 hours an Islamic version of "Jailhouse Rock" in order to keep the world together. I gather 2 or 3 lost pathetic souls and get them to accept this idol as God. (truly lost people will believe in anything) Can everyone else I try to bring to my new religion rebel against my teachings? It doesn't truly exist. This God only "exists" because I just invented it.

I give this ludicrous example only as an argument that you can indeed "rebel" against something that doesn't truly exist.

Your rebuttal of Camus' logic seems to imply you haven't really read-up on your beliefs and that you're sort of making this up as you go along, just to suit your needs.

My beliefs? Camus doesn't speak for me. What makes you think he does?

Does the Pope (or any other religious leader) speak for you on all issues? He is highly regarded, yet I'm sure you disagree with him on a few points. What you don't seem to realize is that just because a philosopher writes about atheists doesn't mean he speaks for all atheists. In my own articles I try to write with this in mind.I speak not for all atheists, but for me and any other atheists who agrees with me on these points. Atheism is simply a belief in no God(s). Any other details beyond that is a person by person choice.

After all, aren't you into Martial Arts?

Yes, I am. Have been since I can remember.

Isn't this entire movement based on (gasp) religion?

Nope.

I was under the impression that the Martial Arts were invented as a defense mechanism for those being oppressed (gasp) religiously.

That's a very broad and incorrect statement. In general self defense styles grew from military movements and desires for preservation of self. "Self defense" is simply about learning self preservation, and the term "martial arts" covers many different styles with a wide array of histories. Capoeira, for example grew from Black Slaves held in Brazil. More to do with personal preservation then fighting for religious belief. Judo was formed out of Master Kano's desire to spread jujitsu in a better fashion. Have martial arts been used to defend religious belief? Absolutely. They've been used to defend anything a warrior feels is worth defending, including but not limited to family, friends, country, self, ideals, philosophies, and religions.

This is akin to you holding Mass or Communion in your home whilst professing Atheism.

Considering I just corrected your above misconception on martial arts. This statement is invalid.

Why study self-defence? If your life is no more important than a fly, then why defend it?

You mistake my words "no more important" to mean "not important at all". This is incorrect.

In the entire scheme of the world (and more so in the whole universe) a single fly seems insignificant, yet it works hard at preserving its own life. The simple gazelle runs away from the hungry lion, and the ram uses its natural weapons to defend itself. Self-preservation is an important fact of nature that actually enforces my atheist belief not hurts it.

As far as unicorns and dragons and monsters are concerned - they do exist - notice they are all built on a real basis - horses, lizards and dinosaurs, hideous beasts and deformed and mad men.

This is a bit of a stretch in terms proof for your argument. Sure stories have been created from physical deformities and embellishments, but an imaginary creature still doesn't exist.

Actually, it's not hard to believe that in some rare quirk of nature - somewhere along evolutionary paths (yes, evolutionary - as God set the process of evolution into motion) - that a horse did grow a horn as some bone deformity or that a "dragon" (i.e.: dinosaur) did survive and was a plague on some medieval English village - and men have had conditions that made them appears as "vampires" are described. These things are merely exaggerated for the purpose of entertainment.

Not that this has anything to do with morals and ethics but since you bring it up, are there any parts of the Bible that are "merely exaggerated for the purpose of entertainment"? If so, please site exact examples and passages so I can better understand that holy book.

Bottom line - Man can not fathom that which does not exist or have potential to exist. It is beyond the scope of our mind to create from nothingness - this is where God steps in.

Referring back to my unrealistic God Idol I stated earlier, does that exist or have potential to exist? Only in people's imagination.

You have also stated, "It is Christian faiths that are often guilty of the assumption you charge us with." these charges being that you as a man think you are the center of the universe as God does not exist.

Tell me dear Atheist - does the attack on America bother you?

Of course. The inevitable deaths of those that created this attack also bothers me. All death sucks, but it's a natural and important part of life.

Does it affect you more than a beef slaughter-house? Does it affect you more than stepping on leaves?

Yes, but what do you mean by this?

You're a liar if you say no and you're not an Atheist if you say yes because to an Atheist life has no meaning.

In what way? By definition, an Atheist simply doesn't believe in God(s). I firmly believe life has meaning, just nothing to do with God(s). This is the exact discrimination and prejudice that I wrote this article to dispel.

It's the root of your belief - that man is no better or more important than flowers or bugs. After all, it was you that said, "I think we are a very small part of a greater whole no more important to this universe than any dog or flower."

Again, you mistake my words "no more important" to mean "not important at all".

In your first response, you attack atheists for "their assumption that MAN is the ultimate force". Once you find you're wrong about this assumption, you go the other way and attack my belief that "we are a very small part of a greater whole no more important to this universe than any dog or flower". It appears that you will attack atheists no matter what you think we believe. Hopefully I'm wrong. Tell me. Where do humans stand in the world in your belief?

However, since you questioned my comments, I'll play this game.

Which is more important in this universe, the human being or the animals and plants that are consumed to keep it alive?

Again I refer you to my self-preservation response earlier. In the entire scheme of things a single life appears insignificant except to that life and their immediate life members (or those affected by them somehow). Last year, a Christian child fell and died in Los Angeles California. Did you weep? Why not? Because you were unaware of that life. It was insignificant to you. Are you crying about it now that you've learned about it? No? Why not. Lives only appear significant when they affect us personally. What about the composer of the attack? Is his life significant to you? Should we kill him/her in your opinion? My parents died. Why didn't you cry for them or feel sorrow for them you inhuman monster? (Please note the sarcasm in this person attack on your character.)

The attack on America was a bad thing and lots of people were killed. You insinuate that I felt nothing for these deaths as an attack on my atheism. Shame on you.

I mow my lawn - should I be considered a serial killer?

Just a shade worse than a deer eating leaves. The deer eats for survival. You mow for vanity and a bit of cleanliness. Should you be punished for this "crime"? Of course not.

Make no mistake, I don't cry over mowed lawns or the death of an animal for food. These deaths are natural parts of life.

However, if you are making the assumption that I don't care about life. That is incorrect. In fact I hold life in high regard. (The lives around me appear significant to me as I stated earlier) I just don't see a problem with death. Your misconception about this is an example of the prejudice I discussed in my article.

After all, we are no more important than a flower, no? Do you believe these acts are evil?

No more evil than the tiger catching and killings its meal for survival. Death in all forms is sad, but necessary.

Where does evil stem from? Is there no driving force? Can you see evil? If you believe in evil then you obviously believe in basic morality and a moral code -

DUH! That's the basic concept of my article!

then where does this originate?

NOT from God. That's my point.

If man and the universe are a cosmic-mishap, then there can be no moral code.

I disagree. Many beautiful things have occurred and miraculous inventions created by sheer accident. That's a matter of factual history.

If all that exists is what you can see, then what is this morality you speak of? I don't see it anywhere.

I didn't say all that exists is what you can see.

You said, "As for the fly, it is a physical item we can see, whereas a nonexistent God is not." Well sir, can you see love? Can you see truth? Can you see appreciation? No, you can see indications of these written on the faces of man and you can feel them in your heart - this is the metaphysical reality I refer to - this is the realm in which religion and God are as plain as day.

I apologize if you misunderstood my comment. I didn't mean to state only visible items are real. That was a poor verbiage on my part. My statement was meant to show that you were using an obviously existent creature as proof of one many don't believe exists. That is a poor argument in my opinion.

I see God manifested in the sway of trees, the song of the wind and the pat of rain on the tin roof of my home in the woods. To look at the world and say it is a hapless coincidence is absurd - you are looking at the world wearing the blinders of a man desperate to not be held responsible.

Where you see evidence of God, I see evidence of the simple natural law of cause and effect. Cause creating an effect that becomes the cause for another effect ad infinitum. We simply disagree on the origin of these items.

I think you're just looking to not be held accountable for your actions - which is the childish, albeit typical of the human condition.

Excuse me, but again you bring my character into question. I remind you that you obviously haven't learned much about me. In fact, my whole life is based on the fact that I am responsible for my actions not some nonexistent God! I take full credit for what I do right and take full punishment for what I do wrong. At the end of the day, I don't pray for forgiveness for my mistakes in order to enter some nonexistent heaven. I try to figure out how to fix any mistakes I made and make sure those around me are happy and healthy. My article about child death penalty basically states that children (and everyone) should be held responsible for their own actions, no matter how bad the consequences are. People who have trouble winning their arguments often attack people's character. Please don't stoop to this level anymore.

Again, I'll point to nature as the ultimate proof - just as man has a physical reality here on earth, man has a metaphysical reality in the universe. Everything has its opposite - including physical reality. To say that nothing exists past life is to negate the laws of the physical world, and that my friend, is the Atheist's only ally.

Again, we disagree. I have placed a little extra toward the end of my article. Feel free to read it.

Read Responses

I am no longer accepting responses to my articles.