Page:A defence of atheism.pdf/20

 is an error. These sentiments would be cultivat­ed just the same, only we would transfer the de­votion from the unknown to the known; from the Gods, who, if they existed, could not need it, to man who does. Instead of reverencing an imagi­nary existence, man would learn to revere justice and truth. Ideality and sublimity would refine his feelings, and enable him to admire and enjoy the ever-changing beauties of Nature; the various and almost unlimited powers and capacities of the human mind; the exquisite and indescribable charms of a well cultivated, highly refined, virtu­ous, noble man.

But not only have the priests tried to make the very term Atheism odious, as if it would destroy all of good and beautiful in Nature, but some of the reformers, not having the moral courage to avow their own sentiments, wishing to be popular, fearing lest their reforms would be considered Infidel, (as all reforms assuredly are,) shield them­selves from the stigma, by joining in the tirade against Atheism, and associate it with everything that is vile, with the crime of slavery, the corrup­tions of the Church, and all the vices imaginable. This is false, and they know it; Atheism protests against this injustice. No one has a right to give the term a false, a forced interpretation, to suit his own purposes, (this applies also to some of the Infidels who stretch and force the term Atheist out of its legitimate significance.) As well might we use the terms Episcopalian, Unitarian, Universalist, to signify vice and corruption, as the term Atheist, which means simply a disbelief in a God, because finding no demonstration of his existence, man's reason will not allow him to believe, nor his conviction to play the hypocrite, and profess what he does not believe. Give it its true significance,