A Christian blog, the BitterSweet End , has posted ten questions for atheists. Here they are (unedited except for the italics) along with some quick answers, all of which could be expanded but probably don't need to be:Plenty of standards for morality have been developed over the centuries. In fact, there is an entire branch of philosophy dealing with this (i.e., ethics). Philosophers have produced moral theories (e.g., utilitarianism), which provide standards for determining what is moral. However, one can find an even more basic form of morality in the "golden rule." From what I recall, this predates Christianity by hundreds of years.Scientific evidence suggests an evolutionary basis for what we call morality. Research shows that non-human animals exhibit some of the precursors to what we think of as the moral emotions, and we have long observed evidence of altruistic behavior among non-human species. Clearly, supernatural entities are not necessary for morality.Life is meaningless in the sense that there is no. But because we make our own meaning , there is plenty to be had. Is it really so difficult to imagine a proud parent not finding meaning in being a parent regardless of what he or she believes about god(s)?I'm not sure what is meant by "new atheism." I was an outspoken atheist long before anybody was talking about "new atheism," and I have found very little new in the books I've read by authors described as new atheists by the media. Having said that, I agree with much of what they have written.As for "Darwinism," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone today who identifies as a Darwinist. This seems to be a disparaging label some creationists try to apply to those of us who accept the reality of evolution. Like most educated adults, I am well aware of the impressive scientific evidence supporting evolution. It has very little to do with eugenics or so-called social Darwinism.We are not ancestors/descendants of apes. We share a common ancestry, and fossilized remains of common ancestors have indeed been found. While some creationists have claimed there are no transitional fossils, scientists have known this to be false for some time.I am not sure what you mean by human nature. God belief makes sense for primitive human societies without scientific understanding, so it is not terribly difficult to imagine how it evolved over time. Humans are known to be pattern-seeking creatures who tend to anthropomorphize nearly everything we encounter. We needed to invent gods to explain our world.Although this is no longer necessary, religion continues to meet many important human needs today. But these needs vary from person to person, and there are many other ways of meeting them without invoking supernatural beings. So the existence of atheists is not troublesome. Not necessarily . As for the universe, I suspect some matter and energy may have always existed. I see no reason to assume that there ever was nothing.A ruthless tyrant who happens to be an atheist is not necessarily motivated by atheism any more than one who is a Christian is necessarily motivated by Christianity. The examples you mention were oppressive regimes, and part of what the ended up trying to oppress was religion. However, it was certainly not all they were trying to oppress. To say they were motivated primarily by atheism would reflect utter ignorance of history, human psychology, and the meaning of atheism I wouldn't want a society in which religious belief (or lack thereof) was dictated by anyone. I hope that religious folks will eventually outgrow their superstitions on their own, but I would accept no intervention by the state to restrict religious freedom.I don't believe in gods, so this hypothetical is a bit of a stretch. In order for me to be able to give a coherent answer, I'd first need a clear definition of the god to which you refer. That is, what are the essential characteristics of this thing you call god?I would be convinced that atheism was wrong if I had clear and convincing evidence to support the existence of some sort of god(s). Of key importance, the evidence would have to be sufficient to eradicate any need for faith.The same would be true for Christianity, although it is important to note that the evidence necessary to establish the truth of Christianity would necessarily be much larger than that necessary to support the existence of a god. Why? Because Christianity asks one to believe much more than the existence of a god. Thus, quite a bit more evidence would be needed, as each of the belief claims would have to be supported.I am an atheist because I do not believe that the religious person has met his or her burden of proof . That is, the evidence to which I referred above is lacking. Therefore, the only reasonable position is atheism. I don't believe in gods for precisely the same reasons you do not believe in unicorns.