*Note: The following essay / discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.
First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.
I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.
Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.
For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:
"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."
Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.
Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.
All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.
IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.
Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?
All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.
"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."
That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.
I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.
On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.
