I noticed in your atheist rights and responsibilities, you list "Don't be greedy". I would argue that being greedy is not morally incorrect. In fact, I would argue that greed is a natural and society improving human process.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a system in which individuals produce goods and services that they trade with one another based on mutual consent, not on the use of force or fraud.

Ayn Rand emphasized that businessmen at their best will first and foremost love their work and the challenge of creating products and services that earn them profits. If that's greed, it s to be praised! Rand also singled out for condemnation businessmen who seek money by any means, including fraud, or government handouts and special favors. If that s greed, it's to be damned!

This passage (to me) clearly states why greed is good. There is both a moral and immoral way to use greed to be "successfully" in life.

One may be greedy and wish to have as much money as possible. In achieving this, he creates a life saving device which will never break, wear out and costs only a few dollars. Everyone buys one and the man reaches his goal.

Conversely, another man may be greedy and wish to have as much money as possible. In achieving this, he defrauds his customers into giving their bank account information and steals as much money as possible. He achieves his goal as well.

While achieving the same outcome, the means by which they were achieved is vastly different. Most people would call the first man a hero and the second, a crook, though both were greedy.

My point is that if we all lived morally (who's morals is another argument) greed could be seen as a natural and society improving human process. An atheistic society does not have to reject greed as evil (Rands philosophy is clearly atheistic while honoring greed), but, more simply, it should reject the moral systems in which greed is used immorally.

**For simplicities sake (it is now 4:30am), portions of my passage where copy/pasted from [freerepublic.com URL]

In the context of my Rights and Responsibilities page, I consider greed to be striving for personal gain without consideration of moral consequences. Running a rival out of business by selling a better product is fine. Running a rival out of business by spreading malicious rumors is not.

By the way, I'm posting your note to my blog with a bit of hesitation. As a great believer in copyright preservation, it worries me that parts of your message might have been copied from a source to which you do not have rights. However, I can't tell where your text ends and the copied text begins and I consider your message worth sharing, so I'm going ahead and putting it up. (But, to those readers whose notes I've skipped because they were not original, don't take this as setting a precedent).

Even though I'm an atheist, i find the IAmAnAtheist.com website a bit offensive. I mean, no one should have the right to say to anyone whether or not he/she is an atheist, or a christian, or a pastafarian. I know it's supposed to be funny but still, it struck a minor chord (ha ha lol, geddit? minor chord?? lol). Also, I disagree with your second atheistic right / responsibility. The word "worship" has more than one meaning, one of which is "To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion" (from thefreedictionary.com - a very good site). So perhaps a little rewording would be nice, yes?

I also want to say, W00t ATHEISM! GO ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS ROCK! I AM AN ATHEIST! Atheism gives me all kinds of perks! Like ... Working on Sundays, and the Ability to Learn EVERYTHING through Experience! MOre FREEDOM! YEEEAAH!!! w00t w00t ... YeeaahH!! And, if I was a weak atheist, I could go closer to 'God" as I experience life and the nature of things. Yup .. I Love being an atheist. I am PROUD to be an atheist! I feel that I even have a special bond with the true nature of things. Whenever I think of myself as an atheist, I smile with satisfaction! And I just wanted to say that because I've never done so before. ^_^

I agree that the site might be minorly offensive if one took it too seriously. However, I feel it's clear enough that it's a joke.

The wording of Right and Responsibility #2 is meant to parallel the second of the 10 Commandments, so I feel I'm kind of stuck with it. I feel that, in context, it's meaning is reasonably clear.

Regarding your final paragraph -- please set it to music and send us an MP3. Thanks!

I "stumbled" into this page using stumbleupon and was rather amused by the contents despite my Christian beliefs. I appreciate your attempt to knock down Christianity as far as possible, but would like to request that you understand it before commenting upon it. Christianity IS inherently exclusive - nobody is going to argue that with you and no amount of smart-aleck responses on your web page will stop that fact. The nice thing is that it is exclusive to everyone who chooses to be exclusive to it. There are no requirements except existence - all one has to do is join. Christians do not believe that Atheism is wrong for any reason other than that they believe that Christianity is correct. If you wish to debate that, by all means go for it, but I sincerely hope you've read enough books to make a case. You have my e-mail: I wish you the best of luck in evading ignorance. If you know something I don't know I would be glad to discuss it with you.

I'm not attempting to knock down Christianity. Rather, I'm attempting to knock down a certain group of particularly annoying (and, often, willfully ignorant) Christians.

When you say that "Christians do not believe that Atheism is wrong for any reason other than that they believe that Christianity is correct," I think you may be speaking over-broadly. There are many Christians who believe that being a non-Christian theist is better than being an atheist, or who think that atheists can't have morality because they are godless.

You are right that Christianity has an "inclusive exclusive" thing going for it, and some brands of Christianity believe you can get to Heaven even if you are not Christian.

As for having done research, I was brought up Catholic, I've read various translations of the Bible, and I have 100+ books on the Bible and religion in my home library. I'm no expert in religion, but for an atheist I think I know my way around pretty well.

the moral atheist rights and responsibilities is as dogmatic as any religion. If you have made a choice to follow those things then good for you but you have no justification for presenting them as absolute rules or even as a consistent philosophy. such a list relies on absolutism but with no god all morals are relative. to take the classic example: if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family is this wrong? according to your list it is because -your list implies - stealing is wrong independant of context and he's broken one of the responsibilities. i would argue that in fact such an act to stop the suffering of his children was not only ethically acceptable but if he had the oppurtunity to take the bread and didn't then his inaction would be the morally reprehensible act. Also there seems to be choices that not only ignore ethic's relativity but just reflect your (and societies) prejudices. 'be polite' is an obvious example but also the 'don't cheat on your significant other' - if there's no god then theres nothing innately wrong with cheating except for the bonds of trust you betray. in that case what you mean is 'don't violate bonds of trust' which you already sorta covered with don't lie. again though this is all relative: what if a man is married with young children and the marriage is suffering due to the wife witholding the goods in the bedroom? an unhappy relationship would lead to an unhappy home which would be detrimental to the happiness of both the adults and the children. now what if he can get his jollies elsewhere and so keep harmony in the family with his wife in blissful ignorance not having to fend off unwelcome advances all the time? isnt it a compelling arguement that this is an ethically acceptable - even preferable - route? in this case it is only the getting caught cheating which is wrong please dont take this as an attack on atheism or moral atheism which is where my own theistic beliefs lie, but all dogma rankles with me. the site seems a commendable attempt to underline the stupidness of the idea atheism is undesirable because people can't be moral without god. but perhaps what we should be underlining is the absurdity of the idea we should keep up a lie such as religion, merely for the purpose of social control.

You're making some assumptions here. First, you are missing the point of the list, which is to compare religious and non-religious morality (much of which is the same). And second, you are assuming that the items on the list are literal absolutes, which those familiar with such lists of rules know is not the case (for example, almost nobody thinks that "Thou shall not kill" in the Ten Commandments means you must be a vegetarian).

I disagree that "be polite" reflects societal prejudice or ignores ethical relativity. I don't know of any society in which it is okay not to be polite, and I don't imply that you shouldn't be polite in another culture's context.

But where you really make what I would consider to be a gigantic misstep is in your discussion of not cheating on your significant other. You point out that this is largely covered by "don't lie," and I agree, but that doesn't make it incorrect. As for your example of a man cheating on his wife because she is "withholding the goods in the bedroom" being okay because it leads to a happier marriage, that seems to me to be on incredibly shaky moral grounds (to say the least). To say that "only getting caught" is wrong makes no sense to me because you can't make a moral decision not to get caught, and "but I tried not to get caught" is not, in anyone's book, a good excuse for having an extramarital affair.

Similarly, if a woman were sleeping around because her husband was (ahem) insufficient in some way would you consider that moral? I assume so, but this is just the top of an incredibly slippery slope. It also ignores the fact that by "fooling around" you can involve your spouse in other unwanted issues (such as the potential for diseases and children) without their consent.

If a couple has marital problems, you need to work them out, even if it means agreeing to an open marriage or some such thing. You're not going to convince me that extramarital affairs are done for the good of the family.

First off I'd like to say that I am Ashiest, but one thing that bothers me about your site is that you claim that you will send this information to my mother. Firstly, this bothers me because I strongly support keeping ones faith personal (if my mom is Christian why provoke that? what difference does it make?) and secondly it makes Atheism seem aggressive to newcomers. So I guess my question is why do you chose this approach?

I chose this approach because, frankly, it's ridiculous and therefore might generate conversation. It's also a bit of a parody of those who say that "all you need to do is believe" to be religious. Seriously, if you can freely choose what you believe about deities, that's weird to me.

you cant say were athiests unless we say it

Can't I? Please?

I noticed your atheistic rights and responsibilities. I don't actually see any rights, but only responsibilities. Anyway, I'm curious why I should obey any of those? Because YOU think I should? What exactly are the long-term consequences if I fail to adhere to all of those responsibilities.

Now you say "Remember, theists may condemn you for living by this code because you are doing it of your own free will instead of because you're afraid that if you don't a supreme being will set you on fire." Who will condemn me for living exactly opposite to this code? Atheists? So what? Theists? So what?

What are the long-term consequences if you don't adhere to the code? People won't like you. Who will condemn you? Society.

If you want to live opposite to this code go ahead, but do it somewhere far away from civilization.

i am an atheist and i love the site! the arguments in reply to your mail is brillient, however on the arguments page i feel you could have come up with some more useful arguments

like for "You can't see air, but you believe in it."

a good comeback would be the overwheliming evedence that it does exist, EG magnesium burning in air gains in weight, and the fact that you can feel air if you move through it fast enough. and theres also the fact that if you stop breathing, you die...that much mean there is something in air that we need :p

i loved the site and im glad a have some more arguments against god, and the typical religious veiw of the world.

keep up the good work! :)

The arguments page isn't really supposed to be taken seriously. It's more of a "flip answers atheists wish they could give" kind of thing.

I came upon your site through stumbleupon, read the rights and responsibilities, and noticed something VERY important missing... I think we have a resonsibility NOT to force our beliefs on others, unlike the theists who condemn left and right.

You're right that not trying to force beliefs is an important rule for all ethical people. However, the Rights and Responsibilities page is a parody of the 10 Commandments, so I don't really have a place to squeeze in a #11.

Hey dude not a bad site, but a couple of points....

Hitler was a Jew/christian. WWII was a war for christianity.

Einstein was an athiest.

Your US founding fathers intended religion to be sererate from the state, the United States was never meant to be a Christian nation. I beleive some of them were athiests themselves, and the whole war was about the US gaining religious freedom from the UK.

Your second and third statements are true, but I'd say your first and last ones are a little shakey. I don't know that it has been proven that Hitler was Jewish (although I've heard that myself), and it's extremely debatable that WWII was a war for Christianity as opposed to a war for German nationalism (or for Hitler's ego).

I don't know that any of the founding fathers were atheists, although many were certainly deists. And the American civil war was much more about political independence than religious independence.

You make some of the stupidest arguments against God that I have ever heart. Any theologian, priest or devout could cut through them like a knife through warm butter. Maybe you could read a book or get out from behind your keyboard and talk to some actual people and you'll learn quickly that there is no truth to your lies. Maybe even the Bible?

I'd be very interested to hear any counters to my "stupid" arguments that you'd like to share. I'm always willing to learn. As for the rest, I have read many books on the subject (including several translations of the Bible and many Bible commentaries), and I speak with "actual people" all the time.

It seems to me that nearly all the counter arguments presented in the "Arguments against Atheist" page take the form of a personal attack on the person who is presenting their belief against Atheism. The comments seem overly aggressive and impatient and all give the impression of not wanting to engage in discussion. Is there any reason for this?

Yep -- it's a joke!

The idea of Atheism being anything more than the disbelieve in god(s) is something which is stopping both Theists accepting it and Atheists from being condescending.

Whenever I have met criticism about my Atheism it has always been made in the way of sweeping generalisations. People seem to assume that because I am Atheist I have to subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory or in the "theory of Evolution" which, although I do, must be very annoying for those Atheists who don't.

Equally, the idea that Atheism has to be free from religion is another idea which is getting in the way of Atheism being truly accepted. Several mainstream religions do not have god(s) in their believe system and so someone who is a follower of these would be an Atheist as well as a whatever-they-are-first-ist.

Basically - Atheism is not a common believe structure and shouldn't be treated as such, and the fact that a lot of people want it to be treated as such is pathetic and backwards.

Shrug

You are correct in much of what you say, but on this site I am discussing my own personal flavor of atheism. Also, I think that the atheists who are being condescending are doing so not because of misinformation about the definition of atheism but because of arrogance, intolerance, or other personal problems. They need to be shown the error of their ways just as much as theists who have preconceived notions of what atheism is do.

As a declared atheist for the past 30 years, I know the difficulties of conversing with Unwashed, and must commend you on the skill with which you assay the task. I myself have found it an unrewarding endeavor and have since given it up. It is futile to debate with people who are under the impression that conceding a point is tantamount to eternal damnation.

It is important, I feel, if you are going to continue your discourse with the Believer, to stress that atheism doesn't carry with it any obligation whatever to behave in certain ways, or espouse any ancillary beliefs; atheism is atheism, and nothing more. For example, atheism does not necessarily imply the acceptance of the theory of evolution (though it often does, and with good reason), the embracing or rejection of any moral code, tolerance or intolerance of any other group of humans, or even a rational mindset. Despite accusations to the contrary, pure atheism requires no faith whatsoever and makes no claims. Purest atheism does not say "God does not exist," it says "I do not believe in God."

Making atheism out to be anything other than what it actually is gives Believers an excuse to do the same.

I agree that, sometimes, trying to debate these topics feels like trying to push a chocolate cake into a brick wall. I've found that, at least for me, effectiveness requires a huge amount of time, tolerance, and patience – things that are often unavailable in the context of a religious discussion.

I agree that atheism does not necessarily carry with it moral or scientific baggage, and I also would not say, "God does not exist." However, I espouse a method of philosophical thought more than I espouse atheism, and that method of thought has led me to a philosophy that I'll call "Good Atheism." Good Atheism encompasses both a lack of belief in deities and a desire to be philosophically consistent, which implies a number of moral rules. These aren't the "faux Ten Commandment" rules I list on my Web site (those are intended as more of a joke than anything), but I can go into detail if anyone is interested. Frequent readers of this blog won't find any surprises.

Hi, I'm an Atheist and I appreciate your site, but I wanted to comment:

1. Have no gods.

Well, of course, we are atheists.

2. Don't worship stuff.

See above.

3. Be polite.

Politeness should be contingent. Otherwise it just feeds unwarranted aggressive behavior.

4. Take a day off once in a while.

Sorry, but this sounds like another "Self Help" platitude.

5. Be nice to folks.

See above 4 and 3. Nice should be contingent.

6. Don't kill people.

Ever? Why? I mean, killing just because or out of rage is horrible and should never happen, but killing in self defense or in defense of freedom is often necessary.

7. Don't cheat on your significant other.

What is this? "Cheat"? Like in "Don't have SEX outside monogamous marriage?

8. Don't steal stuff.

What stuff? From whom? When? Property rights are contingent upon local laws. Local laws have defended slavery, among many other horrors.

9. Don't lie about stuff.

Again: When? To whom? I agree that to distort the truth is bad for everyone, but sometimes the truth is unethical ("Yes officer, the jews are hiding in my basement") or plain dumb rude ("Yes honey, you do look fat and old")

10. Don't be greedy.

Yup, agreed. Greed is terrible.

Responding to a few of your responses (and keeping in mind that the point of the page in question is more about showing that atheists can be just as moral as theists, as opposed to actually dictating rules for atheists):

Politeness should be contingent. Otherwise it just feeds unwarranted aggressive behavior.

Politeness should be the default position, not one only used after it is earned. That is, I'll hold a door for a stranger even if they don't hold a door for me first. I disagree that being rude to rude people will help the situation (if that's what you're implying).

Sorry, but this sounds like another "Self Help" platitude.

Perhaps, but it's still a good, generally accepted idea, and if I'm trying to parallel the Ten Commandments something needs to go in this spot.

See above 4 and 3. Nice should be contingent.

I disagree for the same reason as above. This does not rule out the possibility of self defense, of course.

Ever? Why? I mean, killing just because or out of rage is horrible and should never happen, but killing in self defense or in defense of freedom is often necessary.

I think we can define the atheistic "don't kill" in pretty much the same way as the religious "don't kill" – that is, vaguely.

What is this? "Cheat"? Like in "Don't have SEX outside monogamous marriage?

This is "cheat" as in "don't break the rules of a commitment." So yes, if you're supposedly in a monogamous marriage, you shouldn't be having sex with someone else. But if you're in an open marriage, that's a different story.

What stuff? From whom? When? Property rights are contingent upon local laws. Local laws have defended slavery, among many other horrors.

I'd say that stealing is claiming for your own something that some other entity claims as private property, treating public property as private property, or acting to devalue public or private property for personal gain or entertainment. Yes, there have been immoral property laws in the past, and this country even fought a civil war based in part on whether not returning a slave is stealing, but I think that my definition is largely sound. I welcome other suggestions, of course.

Again: When? To whom? I agree that to distort the truth is bad for everyone, but sometimes the truth is unethical ("Yes officer, the jews are hiding in my basement") or plain dumb rude ("Yes honey, you do look fat and old")

I'd say that lying in this context would be telling an untruth (or allowing an untruth to be believed) for personal gain or entertainment.

Yup, agreed. Greed is terrible.

Actually, Randians and some Libertarians would disagree with this, but that doesn't bother me too much.

yeah as an guy who feels that god likely doesn't exist i got to say some of your faq responses are shallow and not that true. for example the correct response to you have faith would not be to insult the kindhearted and mislead theist but rather to explain the difference between faith and an acceptance of the lord god as our savior. i got to say sites like this fail to to really better the problem. (lack of real introspection by most people and instead just takes easy potshots at people who don't know better) it seems like logic would be more appropriate for an atheist than sarcasm at least withing the public sphere. consider the purpose of this website either it A exist to preach to the choir and satisfy you personal anger over the shit those nonreligious people like us get in which case this site is lame B it is to give some reasonable arguments for an atheistic world view to those on the edge in which case you would be better served by not appearing like a dickweed (god i love that phrase.) Also consider some humility in regards to the truthiness of your beliefs. Atheism is essentially i don't know but gods existences seems unlikely / if he exists he's got some splanein to do (watch i love Lucy.) don't be so aggressive and more people will like you realize that your pedaling logic witticisms that fail to address essential issues don't help in reaching beyond those who already believe (or i suppose already don't.) Considering the axiomatic nature of logic to claim total certainty (which you don't do explicitly but your tone/diction imply) seems a little ridiculous. this is especially true if you would support a generally recognized view of morality because of the inherent contradictions in every moral system of any popularity. On a personal level i certainly feel that my moral system is ultimately something i believe in simply because i want to (or at least some deep ether region of my brain does) and that with recognition that i stand on such shaky ground it seems hypocritical to chip a at others faiths. happy ramblings.

-anonymous because; you know; tis the internet and whatnot

As readers of this blog know by know, the main IAmAnAtheist site is intended to be humorous. The text you refer to isn't supposed to be attacking religious people in general, but instead attacking those religious people who rely on faulty reasoning and bad arguments to attack atheists.

I agree that tolerance and reason is a far better way to better the world, and that's what this blog is for.

I'm sorry you didn't leave your e-mail address because I would have liked to converse with you a bit more.

I find the idea very amusing but you take it a little far and become very offensive. anyways it was funny until i read the rest. then you just get ugly

"It's not nice to argue or tease. Certainly religious people wouldn't speak badly of you just because of your beliefs, so you shouldn't speak badly of them. " but you do by calling them stupid and ignorent.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where do I call religious people stupid or ignorant?

I was molested when I was little and have had a very hard time dealing with it. It was only through the grace of Christ and the love of the church that I have been able to build myself up again and restored my self esteem. You would have me throw that all away for an empty life, no hope, and nights of screaming nightmares. For that I can only shake my head at your ignorance and pray for the salvation of your soul.

I would never want to try and tear away from anyone a community or belief that has helped them in time of need. I do not ask religious people to give up their faith, only to look at their faith with an open mind. I also fear that you have a misunderstanding of atheism – an atheist life does not need to be bleak, hopeless, or empty, and I would not have you suffer without your faith and offer no healing alternative.

It must have taken great strength for you to recover from your horrible childhood experience. I commend you for your strength and hold in high regard those who helped you in your hour of need. I also thank you for your concern for my soul, but reassure you that I lead a full, happy, giving life and am not in need of assistance.

This is so like shooting fish in a barrel!

"Don't worship stuff."

How about money or my wife?

"Be polite."

Atheists don't have to be polite. They can be total asses if they want to because they make their own decisions.

"Take a day off once in a while."

Atheists can't be workaholics?

"Be nice to folks."

Why should I? They have to be nice to me first.

"Don't kill people."

Death penalty all the way! What a bout just wars? Or self defense? Or eating meat?

"Don't cheat on your significant other."

You can't tell me who to have sex with. If she doesn't find out, who does it harm?

"Don't steal stuff."

I can't take a pen home from work? Give me a break!

"Don't lie about stuff."

Okay, I'll tell my mom her dress looks ugly.

"Don't be greedy."

Why????? Piles o' money that's for me!!!!!!

Your arguments all fail for one or more of the following reasons:

1) My list of rights and responsibilities is for moral atheists. If you aren't moral, then it doesn't apply to you (and I'd argue that, for example, if you cheat on your wife you aren't moral).

2) The list, like any list of this type, trades a bit of rigor for brevity. For example, I obviously don't intend atheists to be nothing-but-the-truth-telling robots.

3) The list includes rights as well as responsibilities. Taking a day off is a right, but nobody requires you to exercise your rights.

If you would like to make a more detailed argument about one (or all) of these, I am interested in listening.

I should have made it a bit clearer.

1) Atheist; do not need to demonstrate to religious people that they are moral. Morality is cultural and arguably genetic rather than religious. Therefore my comment; neither require nor subscribe too, refers to the list in its entirety. Effectively please don't replace a set of rules for a similar set of rules, you or I don't have the moral authority for that.

2) Creating a ten commandments is a step towards creating a creed that I suggest only supplants one creed for another and leaves the religious groups (deists used loosely) fodder to call atheism a religion, this is prevalent on some evangelical websites.

I hope that sums up my position

Okay, I think I understand you a bit better now.

In item #1, when you say that atheists do not "need" to demonstrate to religious people that they are moral you are technically correct. However, there are a great many religious people who believe that atheists are necessarily immoral. It's this assumption of immorality (or, at least, non-morality) that makes some people think that atheists shouldn't, for example, hold public office. I'd say that it is in the best interest of atheists to show these theists the error of their ways.

Your statement that morality is cultural and possibly genetic rather than religious is, I think, a little ill defined. Many people's culture is inexorably intertwined with their religion. Also, many people believe that morality requires religion or a deity, and even though they are wrong, they are making important decisions based on this belief.

You are completely correct that I do not have the moral authority to dictate a set of rules for moral atheism. As I said, the point of the page in question really isn't to create such a list of rules. However, I think that moral atheists would largely agree with most of the statements on that page, so I don't mind saying that this is the case in order to make a broader point.

I am somewhat in agreement with your point #2 and would never insist that there are atheist "commandments." However, I do think that there are a number of things that moral atheists have in common, and enumerating them is no more creating a creed than enumerating things mathematicians generally agree upon would be. The main differences between my list and a religious creed are that mine is subject to argument and change, and that I recognize that it does not apply to all atheists.

You are definitely correct that some theists believe atheism to be a religion (or, at least, think it should be legally treated as such). I don't think that my list of rights and responsibilities would be much help in their efforts, in that by quoting it they would be doing more to poke fun at their own position than to damage mine.

So, to sum up, I agree with you that I have no right to dictate morality to atheists, but since the Web page in question is satire I don't think it's philosophically problematic. I do, however, maintain that this list of items generally applies to moral atheists, and would be very interested in any argument to the contrary.