| Follow @ThePoachedEgg |
Trying to Understand Atheism
by Greg West
As I was looking for ideas for some things to post for today, I started surfing around atheist groups and fan pages on Facebook to see if I could get inspired to write something. I was hoping I could find some good arguments against the existence of God; they are atheists after all!
Although I ran across a few (very few) somewhat intelligent posts, mostly what I found was just a bunch of religion bashing and God bashing mostly aimed at Christians. The Muslims came in second, but it wasn’t even close.
I also discovered that they really don’t have anything worth saying at all about anything; or so it would seem from the handful of random sites that I visited. I will admit that I did run across one short thread on the morality of vegetarianism. That was about the closest thing to an intelligent or even somewhat interesting thing I found.
Most of it was just quotes or rants about how stupid religious people (again, mostly Christians) are and patting each other on the back congratulating each other on how smart they are for not believing in God, and how great Richard Dawkins’ or Sam Harris’ latest book was. And the funny thing is (or sad, depending on how you look at it), is that they all talk about God as if he exists.
Now, I’ve never been an atheist (I tried to be an agnostic once but it didn’t work out), but I’d like to think that if I were one that I would try to come up with better arguments against the existence of God than some of these folks do. Many atheists will go to great lengths to deny the existence of God and some will even go as far as saying things like: Hitler was a Christian; Jesus never existed; the Big Bang never happened; Mother Teresa was not really that good of a person; Christianity was invented by the apostle Paul, or as some will even say, the Roman Emperor Constantine. And what makes these assertions even more absurd is that none of them would disprove the existence of God even if they were true. If you think I’m making this stuff up, just browse around a few atheist websites and blogs, or do a search for atheist groups on Facebook, and look around for a while, and you’ll see what I mean. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.
I don’t mean to imply here that atheists fall into this group. I know a lot of atheists who are very intelligent and I also know that not all atheists are anti-Christian. I am talking about the ones who are so anti-Christian that they would like to see the open practice of religion outlawed for the overall ‘good’ of society.
They hate God and Christians so much that many refuse to capitalize the words Jesus or Christian, even though they are proper nouns, just to show their disdain for those words. I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, using proper English and grammar does not necessarily reflect one’s religious beliefs.
Atheists have a popular slogan: “There probably is no God so stop worrying about it and enjoy your life.” My question to them would be, “Why don’t you take your own advice?”
There are several reasons I don’t often respond to things like this: one, I don’t have sufficient time to devote without sacrificing other endeavors; two, I’m not trying to convert you or anyone else to my belief (or disbelief); and three, these debates often become contentious and acerbic, which I don’t desire.
Let me outline my reason for responding at all. I see your posts and there is a common thread, which is a general disdain for the non-believer. There are constant quotations that attempt to deride the person who came up with a different solution to the same question. I know, I know, if I wanted to keep from reading your posts, that’s easy enough to solve, but we’re friends and I don’t want to cut off all ties, but you posed a question and made some observations, so I’ll give you what I perceive as the answer.
One basic thing for Christians is the requirement/urge/desire to share the gospel. That is the main reason you do this, I would imagine, which is to say that you feel that God wants you to or that it has given so much joy to you that you want to share it (or both). As an atheist, I obviously don’t have the first compulsion, as there is no God compelling me to do anything. Furthermore, many people don’t find the thought of atheism a comfortable one, so my sharing would not be to spread comfort to the world. I don’t find the thoughts of cancer or war comforting, but I still accept them as real.
My belief structure is the way it is because… well, because of many of the same reasons you would give. My personal experiences, the outside influences in my life, the application of logic tools I have developed, etc. In that sense we can probably agree that my reason for disbelieving is not based on shaky ground. The thing is that we each placed different values on the various factors coming into our perceptions. When I hear of the Bible I look at it as I look at other texts considered holy by other groups. I ask myself why I would consider one more sacred and come to the conclusion that there is not compelling evidence to do so. You take the same inputs and come to a different conclusion.
Your first paragraph states that you were hoping to find some good arguments against the existence of God. You’ll find as good of arguments against the existence of God as you will for the existence, at least on Facebook forum pages. You’ll find atheist-bashing zealots who take great joy in informing us how we’ll all burn in hell for eternity. Should I judge you, Greg, and your faith, Christianity, based on that? I won’t, and I don’t think you would want me to.
I assume you don’t believe in goblins, and I’d say that’s a logical belief. But could you answer why? (If you do believe in goblins, just substitute something else ridiculous.) Your case against the existence of goblins would be very similar to my case against the existence of God. Volumes have been written on the subject and I don’t have the time or energy to rehash those, but most would agree with the arguments if the subject was the existence of goblins.
You said there was nothing worthwhile said and that very few of the posts even seemed somewhat intelligent. I’d like to point out that your observation suffered from a sampling error in that you viewed a very small number of people posting in a limited forum. There are many intelligent atheists (and Christians, and Muslims, and…), but you seem to discount my argument based on their posts.
Your examples that atheists give against God are only inclusive of the lowest brow. “Hitler was an atheist” is a common argument for the belief of God – doesn’t prove or disprove anything, but your side uses it just as much. Jesus may or may not have existed, but neither proves or disproves divinity, but many religious people make the claim that their proof of His existence equates proof of His divinity – which just isn’t so. Do you call a Christian absurd when he or she argues that Jesus existed? Do you say, “That doesn’t prove He is the son of God”? No, but you level that accusation here.
You say that atheists hate God so much that some refuse to capitalize the proper nouns. It’s not a hatred of God, because that implies atheists assume existence. What many of them hate is the system that has been created in His name. (By the way, I’ve heard people argue that since I capitalize God and Jesus, I’m subconsciously admitting their divinity. It kind of makes me want to not capitalize it, just to make the point, but I’m too grammatical to do so.) I dislike many of the things perpetrated on the behalf of religion. Even that doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Then again, what would prove or disprove it? Aha, here’s the kicker: I must provide proof for you to disbelieve, but you offer me your faith. Your lack of proof is blamed on my lack of faith.
The slogan for the campaign is actually, “There is probably no God,” which removes that zealous certainty many Christians possess. You seem to point out an inconsistency, which is that atheists claim there is no God and to just enjoy your life, all the while doing the opposite. (That assumes one doesn’t enjoy arguing, but that’s besides my point.) I can only speak for this atheist, as you can only speak for yourself, but I can assure you that I do enjoy my life. The only problems caused by my lack of faith come from the so-called faithful. I have no inner turmoil, I love, I laugh, I help people, and I cherish life. I don’t kill or steal and that’s because I choose not to, not because fear punishment from God. In fact, I’m not so sure you’d find a statistically significant difference if we could find a way to compare the relative happiness of atheists and theists, which isn’t to say I have a way to measure such things.
I live a fulfilled life complete with friends and community, just like I assume you do. There is so much more I could say, but I think I’ve shared my point, which is really to say that you should turn your critical eye on yourself and look in the mirror. When you say, “atheists do the following…” you should see if you could replace the word atheist with another and see if it holds true. If so, then you may be unfairly characterizing a whole group of people.
Justin, thank you for your comments, and for your candor. I believe you are incorrect in assuming that I have disdain for the unbeliever. I only have compassion for the unbeliever, which is part of the reason that I post the things I do. My posts are not an attempt to deride anyone. They are an attempt to show the vanity and foolishness of atheistic philosophies. If I can make one atheist doubt for a second that there is no God, then I will consider what I do here as completely worth it.
You are correct in saying that I share the Gospel because I feel God wants me to (Jesus commands us to do so in the Bible), and because I want others, including you, to share in the joy that I have found in Christ. I do find atheism uncomfortable. In fact I find it downright distasteful. There is nothing I would rather do than to be around only Christians or people who are open to the possibility that Christianity just might be true. I am reminded of the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament whom God told to prophesy his judgment against Israel. He was not too happy about that assignment and wanted to quit. But God’s word burned like a fire inside of him so that he felt compelled to prophesy God’s word, because if he didn’t, he felt that it would totally consume him from the inside out (Jeremiah 20:9).
I honestly cannot comprehend how any intelligent person (and I do not intend for this to be, or to sound insulting, it is simply my point of view) can logically come to the conclusion that there is no God, but they obviously do. I agree with you that there are intelligent people with all sorts of various beliefs.
For instance, the Big Bang is one of Science’s most confirmed theories. It explains that, before the Big Bang, time, space, and matter did not exist. Therefore, if the Big Bang was caused by something ( the Law of Causality states that everything that exits must have a cause), then that something must exist outside of time, space, and matter, and this lines up perfectly with the God of the Hebrew/Christian Bible.
I must also disagree with you when you say that your beliefs are not based on shaky ground. I believe they are based on very shaky ground. I do not know if you have ever done a serious study comparing the Bible with other religious writings and holy books, but the Bible clearly stands alone in its claim to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. You state that there is no compelling evidence to believe that the Bible is more sacred (i.e. more true) than other religious texts, and I wonder how you came to this conclusion. I find a lot of compelling evidence. Fulfilled prophecy being just one of the many compelling evidences. I find that the existence of the Bible itself to be a miracle of grand proportions.
Your statement about goblins leads me to conclude that you believe that there is there is no more compelling evidence to believe in God than there are goblins. If this is what you believe, then I must say that you have grossly misunderstood the evidence or have overlooked much of the evidence altogether. You say that there have been volumes written against the existence of God. I can say that volumes have been written for the existence of God, or on practicing witchcraft, or new age mysticism, etc. Volumes having been written on a subject doesn’t necessarily make it true. One must weigh the evidence and make up their own mind.
As far as the relevance of Jesus’ existence proving that there is or isn’t a God, well if Jesus was not an historical person, then Christianity would not be true, and then one could make an argument against the existence of God from there. One of my points about the existence of Jesus is that to judge his historicity using the same criteria that we use to determine the historicity of other historical figures, then his existence cannot rationally be denied. To do this would mean denying the existence of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and a host of others.
And no, I would not want you to judge me on the behavior of atheist-bashing religious zealots, especially since I do not see myself as one. I have never posted anything on any website run by or for atheists, let alone bashed them. I agree with you in that I also dislike many things that have been perpetrated in the name of religion.
You wrote that you must provide proof for me to disbelieve, but I offer you my faith. I submit that no proof has ever been presented nor will ever be. I cannot any more prove the existence of God, than you can disprove His existence, but I do believe there is much compelling circumstantial evidence, even more than enough, to reasonably conclude that Christianity is true. Does it take faith to believe in God or Christianity? Absolutely! But I think that you will have to agree that any worldview takes a certain degree of faith. I do realize that the slogan is actually “There ‘probably’ is no God”, but if that is what one believes, then, that would be agnosticism, not atheism.
I never meant to imply that all atheists are bad people. I believe there are atheists out there who are probably more moral than a lot of people who claim to be Christians. I believe that we are ALL sinners, myself included, in need of a Savior.
I felt the best way to reply is in the same manner we would in a conversation. Therefore, I copied your rebuttal and began your sections with — and mine in brackets with **. I hope it’s not confusing in its flow.
Please accept my reply as a friend, because I mean no disrespect. The following wasn’t written in anger or hate, but as an open dialogue between two friends with vastly different beliefs. I say that, but I bet we have many of the same thoughts on morality and society, so there is common ground.
I don’t intend to knock anyone down or make them feel stupid. Naturally, I believe I’m right and you’re wrong, but you reciprocate and I don’t think either one of us should apologize for that.
Too many times people dance around subjects and never let their true feelings known. I firmly believe that people need to have deeply honest conversations about everything, even the forbidden topics of politics and religion.
One last thing before I begin my reply. I truly enjoy debate in this fashion for several reasons. First of all, it keeps my mind active and that’s something most people could use. I also like the idea of having the opportunity to think about a reply and word it exactly how you want. This keeps debaters with strong personalities from bullying the other in a debate, something I’ve certainly been accused of before. On the other side is the fact that each person has the opportunity to go on and on without rebuttal, but it evens out in the end.
Without any further delays, I present my counterargument.
–Justin, thank you for your comments, and for your candor. I believe you are incorrect in assuming that I have disdain for the unbeliever.
**[I believe you when you say that you don’t have disdain for the unbeliever, but you do disdain the beliefs. It shows an intolerance of others’ points of view. It’s like looking at a written book and saying, “If only all the words were different it would be a good book, but as it is it says all the wrong stuff.”]
–I only have compassion for the unbeliever, which is part of the reason that I post the things I do. My posts are not an attempt to deride anyone. They are an attempt to show the vanity and foolishness of atheistic philosophies.
**[I’m not sure how my philosophy can be construed as vane; I’m the one who says there’s not enough evidence and I can’t believe without it.]
–If I can make one atheist doubt for a second that there is no God, then I will consider what I do here as completely worth it.
**[Your mission, in other words, is to convert people to your way of thinking.]
–You are correct in saying that I share the Gospel because I feel God wants me to (Jesus commands us to do so in the Bible), and because I want others, including you, to share in the joy that I have found in Christ.
**[Different people find joy in different things. The finding of joy in an act or belief does not make it good.]
–I do find atheism uncomfortable. In fact I find it downright distasteful.
**[I’d like to point out my original statement regarding many distasteful things, such as cancer: I find them quite uncomfortable, but that doesn’t mean I deny them or find an alternate explanation.]
–There is nothing I would rather do than to be around only Christians or people who are open to the possibility that Christianity just might be true.
**[I think that is natural enough. You want to surround yourself with likeminded people, but feel commanded to share the gospel. It’s also natural for atheists to want to do the same, except without the urge to share.]
–I am reminded of the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament whom God told to prophesy his judgment against Israel. He was not too happy about that assignment and wanted to quit. But God’s word burned like a fire inside of him so that he felt compelled to prophesy God’s word, because if he didn’t, he felt that it would totally consume him from the inside out (Jeremiah 20:9).
**[I understand why you did it, but I’d like to point out that Christians many times relate an argument back to a Bible verse. I see it as a sign of arrogance that these verses are always quoted as the incontrovertible truth, which, yes, you do believe it to be. However, as history has proven, the Bible is not above refutation and simply finding a verse which backs your point is circular logic.
**I listened to a Great Courses college course on CD called the Philosophy of Religion, which I would recommend to anyone, regardless of faith. The professor, James Hall, said that he was lecturing on various types of proof the day a student came up to him and said, “I have proof that the Bible is true.” The professor was eager to hear the proof and the student went on to say, “Because the Bible said it is.” That’s circular logic, which is rampant, if not always so obvious.]
–I honestly cannot comprehend how any intelligent person (and I do not intend for this to be, or to sound insulting, it is simply my point of view) can logically come to the conclusion that there is no God, but they obviously do. I agree with you that there are intelligent people with all sorts of various beliefs.
**[I know you weren’t calling into question my intelligence, so don’t worry, I’m not offended. I am willing to concede that there are people more intelligent and people less intelligent than me on each side of this debate. Either way, it’s funny that you phrase your comment in such a way, because that’s a common thread in atheism circles: “I cannot comprehend how any intelligent person can logically come to the conclusion that there is a God.”]
–For instance, the Big Bang is one of Science’s most confirmed theories. It explains that, before the Big Bang, time, space, and matter did not exist.
**[Theories that are confirmed to a great degree are called laws. Regardless, that is not the theory – the theory leaves what happened before the Big Bang completely unexplained.]
–Therefore, if the Big Bang was caused by something (the Law of Causality states that everything that exits must have a cause), then that something must exist outside of time, space, and matter, and this lines up perfectly with the God of the Hebrew/Christian Bible.
**[All right, time for some healthy debate here. First off, this is where an evolution-denier would scream, “It’s just a theory!”, but that’s not my argument at all. In fact, I think that the Big Bang is the best explanation we currently have for the early development of the universe. The early phases of it are, at best, speculation – which is to say there is much we don’t understand yet (much like evolution). That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it just means we don’t understand it yet. Did anyone ever say that time, space, and matter didn’t exist before the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking said that the question was meaningless, and likened it to the statement, “What lies north of the North Pole?”
**The fact is that we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. There are many theories, such as the Big Bounce, which states that the universe expands to a certain point, then it contracts to the densest possible point, after which there is a Big Bang and everything once again expands. I’m not arguing that to be the case, but it is a legitimate theory and one which would refute your claim of there being nothing before the Big Bang.]
–I must also disagree with you when you say that your beliefs are not based on shaky ground. I believe they are based on very shaky ground. I do not know if you have ever done a serious study comparing the Bible with other religious writings and holy books, but the Bible clearly stands alone in its claim to be the inspired and inerrant word of God.
**[You didn’t address the shaky ground comment. You actually asked if I had compared religious texts; my argument is an irreligious one. I have studied religion extensively, particularly the Abrahamic religions, as well as Buddhism and Hinduism.
**My belief is based on what I’ve seen, what I’ve felt, what I’ve been told, processing the arguments from various authorities, etc. You believe what you do based on what you’ve seen, what you’ve felt, what you’ve been told, and everything just the same as me. The point is that we have the same bases, but have come to different conclusions based on what weights we give to various things claiming to be true. In that sense, my disbelief is every bit as solid as your belief, because I base it on the same factors you do. Another point you made is that the Bible is alone in its claim, which is interesting. Is the fact that it claims to be the word of God significant? Many claims are made every day and it is up to each individual to judge the veracity of those claims.]
–You state that there is no compelling evidence to believe that the Bible is more sacred (i.e. more true) than other religious texts, and I wonder how you came to this conclusion.
**[What I have always found strange is that Christians say that, but so does every religious group. Have you ever asked yourself why other religions are just as convinced as you are?]
–I find a lot of compelling evidence. Fulfilled prophecy being just one of the many compelling evidences.
**[Have you found prophecy fulfilled to a greater degree than any other religion? If so, I’d be willing to do research as well and argue that. If I were to believe that it was the inspired word of the omnipotent creator, the prophecy fulfillment rate better be at 100%, at least for events that have already come to pass. After all, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
**I’d also be willing to question whether miracles have actually occurred. I am using miracle in what I believe to be the same sense as you, which is to say an extraordinary event manifested by divine intervention. Whereas you might say I’m so unwilling to believe that I am blind to miracles, I find much more solid ground thinking that people of faith are so willing to believe that they are blind to skepticism. After all, they’re the ones who take things on faith – which is just a convenient word for without evidence.]
–I find that the existence of the Bible itself to be a miracle of grand proportions.
**[Again, I can find nothing that guarantees this as divine intervention. I understand you’ll disagree with me, but here we have a book written by many different people over a period of time. There are some moral tales, there are some immoral tales, and there is an early explanation of how the universe came to be. What in the Bible is impossible for people to have come up with?]
–Your statement about goblins leads me to conclude that you believe that there is there is no more compelling evidence to believe in God than there are goblins. If this is what you believe, then I must say that you have grossly misunderstood the evidence or have overlooked much of the evidence altogether.
**[If you had evidence, there would be no need for faith. You will doubtless have some strangely construed way of getting around that, but faith, as Christians use it, is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I think you misunderstood my goblin example – what I want you to do is tell me why you don’t believe in goblins. If you want to understand atheism, as you claimed you did, then that’s the first thing to do. Argue against the existence of something like goblins and you’ll start to understand my thought process and how I argue against the existence of God.]
–You say that there have been volumes written against the existence of God. I can say that volumes have been written for the existence of God, or on practicing witchcraft, or new age mysticism, etc. Volumes having been written on a subject doesn’t necessarily make it true. One must weigh the evidence and make up their own mind.
**[First, I agree that volumes having been written do not make it true; that wasn’t my argument. I meant only that there was so much on each side and I didn’t have the time or energy to rehash all of it. In that sense, I was making a plea bargain of sorts in which we both agree that many people have brought up many points on each side, but we can reduce it to the most basic points.]
–As far as the relevance of Jesus’ existence proving that there is or isn’t a God, well if Jesus was not an historical person, then Christianity would not be true, and then one could make an argument against the existence of God from there. One of my points about the existence of Jesus is that to judge his historicity using the same criteria that we use to determine the historicity of other historical figures, then his existence cannot rationally be denied. To do this would mean denying the existence of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and a host of others.
**[You’re right, if people disproved Jesus’ existence it would disprove divinity by default. However, proving existence doesn’t prove divinity, which was all I meant. I also believe there is a big difference between Jesus having existed and Jesus having been the Son of God.]
–And no, I would not want you to judge me on the behavior of atheist-bashing religious zealots, especially since I do not see myself as one. I have never posted anything on any website run by or for atheists, let alone bashed them. I agree with you in that I also dislike many things that have been perpetrated in the name of religion.
–You wrote that you must provide proof for me to disbelieve, but I offer you my faith. I submit that no proof has ever been presented nor will ever be.
**[This is really the point on which we can never come to agreement. For one to believe something as true, it has to be able to be proved untrue. Allow me to explain: We believe gravity is a force of nature and truly exists. We believe that because it actually does what we think it will do. In fact, what we think it will do is based on what we have observed it do. But the possibilities exists that tomorrow we could wake up and find everything floating, in which case we would ask, “What happened to gravity?” We would begin to question gravity because the evidence is not aligning with the theory. We would attempt to explain it and find a new theory. Is there anything that could ever happen to make you do the same with Christianity? Unless I’ve missed the mark, you’ll probably proudly say something like, “No, my faith is strong.” My point is that no evidence will ever be strong enough to convince you otherwise, but you expect me to believe based on evidence of the same level.]
–I cannot any more prove the existence of God, than you can disprove His existence, but I do believe there is much compelling circumstantial evidence, even more than enough, to reasonably conclude that Christianity is true.
**[Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. People use the term as if it means it’s not really evidence, but that’s not the case. Either way, if it’s evidence, then why do you need faith? Is it that the circumstantial evidence is so weak as to count as not really being evidence? If so, it’s not compelling by any means. If that’s not the case, then it is evidence and faith is not required. I’m not sure how people get around that.]
–Does it take faith to believe in God or Christianity? Absolutely! But I think that you will have to agree that any worldview takes a certain degree of faith.
**[No, I don’t agree and could name any number of circumstances in which people would not require faith. If we argue that, you’ll have to loosen the definition of faith to include all sorts of things that don’t apply to this argument.]
–I do realize that the slogan is actually “There ‘probably’ is no God”, but if that is what one believes, then, that would be agnosticism, not atheism.
**[Here’s another misunderstanding. I’m going to go over the spectrum of theistic probability that Richard Dawkins popularized, which attempts to categorize the beliefs of different people as it pertains to God. You said you read the God Delusion, which is where I came across this.
This is a scale from one to seven.
1: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7: Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’
**These are just milestones along a continuum, so it’s not like you have to fit one specifically. As such, we must decide where to draw the line and call someone a theist, agnostic, or atheist. Do only ones and sevens use the titles theist and atheist, respectively? If so, I would dare say there would be far fewer theists because the vast majority of people I have met don’t fall into either category. Even Dawkins said he was somewhere between six and seven, though his particular number escapes me. Most “atheists” would be considered agnostics if you apply the scale in the strictest sense.
**This segues into a point I want to make. Christians seem to believe that in any argument, Christianity is the default winner. You can’t prove God exists and I can’t disprove it, therefore you believe in God. Wait a minute, how did it win by default? In fact, agnosticism should be the default position because it is, by definition, the middle position. I understand that this leaves the definition of “agnostic” open, at least as it applies to our scale. We always return to the same conclusion, which is the Scottish Verdict – not proven. You are comfortable believing something and living your life in service of an ideal; the source of that ideal is the Bible – a two-thousand year old book that can’t be proven as divine. I live my life comfortable that I can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but I live it without the constant guilt of simply being born.]
–I never meant to imply that all atheists are bad people. I believe there are atheists out there who are probably more moral than a lot of people who claim to be Christians. I believe that we are ALL sinners, myself included, in need of a Savior.
**[If religion made you a better person, a better friend, a better father, a better husband, then I think that’s fabulous. There is no sarcasm there; I truly mean it. Maybe you were in need of a savior and you found that in Christianity. Many people have ailments in need of treatment, but those treatments vary. Why are you certain that yours will work for me? What are my ailments? How do I need help? The common thread is that mankind is sinful by nature, but that’s a weak argument and it shows a profound lack of self efficacy.
**Although you found something you believe to be good and true, I disagree. You said that people must view the evidence and make up their own minds. That’s what I’ve done, but now you tell me I’m wrong. I feel that you meant to say people should view the evidence and agree with you.
**We have come back around to the same impartial verdict as before, which is not proven. Everything else aside, it remains unproven. I can’t profess knowledge of something that I don’t know – that would make me dishonest, which I don’t want.]
Sadly enough, I agree with your assessment of most atheist groups and forums. They’re often little more than places to trade rants about theists. This is the precise reason that I don’t spend much time at all on those sites. (For those who don’t know me, I’m an atheist)
I would wager that the majority of them are directed towards Christianity because that is the majority religion in the western world; had Islam or Shinto been the majority I believe that they would be the butt of the jokes.