Faith in atheism
I apologize if i come off a bit rude but in Atheism just like in any other
belief system there needs to be faith. You ask for evidence to prove gods existence but i ask for evidence to disprove his existence. You take it by faith that he does not exist, is that not true, as i take it by faith that he does.
You have also come up with a standard of morales and such which resemble much of the 10 comandments, but instead of loving god as the first you state we must not love or worship any god. Then are we replacing this void with our on ego? I’m not sure how anyone can come to any conclusions of morales with out believing that there is a god. Even Aristotle believed in a great God. I would love to here a response. I’m sure your busy but write when you can i’d appreciate it
You do not come across as rude, so no worries there.
I agree that every belief system requires a certain minimum amount of faith (for example, faith that my senses are to some extent trustworthy). However, from an atheist perspective I disagree with your example. I do not take it on faith that God does not exist. Rather, I see no compelling evidence to believe that God exists and therefore do not believe that He exists.
Your asking for evidence that God does not exist implies that you think “God exists” is the philosophical default position. It seems to me that for this to be the case, God’s existence would have to be so obviously necessary that even someone with no information on the subject would assume He existed (in the same way that even a very young child assumes that the world exists). I don’t think that this is a defensible position.
My Atheistic Rights and Responsibilities is a piece of humor based on the Ten Commandments (as you noticed). It’s not really meant to be taken seriously, but it does have some truth embedded in it. The first statement — “Have no gods” — is essentially just a definition of atheism. If you believe in deities, you aren’t an atheist.
You ask if the void left by removing God is to be filled with our own ego. In response I would ask what void you are talking about. I don’t feel that I am missing anything by not believing in God, however comforting such belief might be. (I would also argue that your statement implies that God was there and that I am trying to remove him, but my position is that God was never there in the first place.)
Finally, you ask how anyone could come to conclusions about morals without God. This is a good question, but the answer depends on how you think God delivers morals.
If you consider morality to be something that has been handed down through religious teachings, then I would argue that these teachings are deeply ambiguous (for example, I can’t think of a single Commandment whose application all believers agree upon). If these teachings are ambiguous, then they must be used in concert with reason when separating moral and immoral actions. And if reason must be used even with morality delivered through religious teachings, then I question whether the teachings are necessary in the first place.
On the other hand, if by morality you mean that humans have a moral sense which was given to them by God, then I would argue that this sense also is ambiguous. For an extreme example, my moral sense says that it is wrong to kill babies, but a Christian (turning to the Bible) might say that there are times when killing babies is moral. Or you might feel morally repulsed by the idea of eating a horse while I think that horse flesh is delicious. If the moral sense is not universal then either morality is not universal or the moral sense is not a good indicator of objective morality.
So then where do we get morality without God? In my upcoming book Ask Yourself to Be Moral, I argue that a consistent, socially acceptable morality can be arrived at through pure reason by anyone who wishes to live a moral life. We can go into this in more detail if you like, but my position is that you can be moral with or without belief in God.