I’m starting this thread so atheists can explain how they came to be atheists and give their positions on issues including science, the Bible, and religion in general. I realize there’s already no shortage of atheists declaiming on these issues in this forum, but I’m hoping to centralize it a bit. I’m doing this primarily because I’d like GEEPERS to get a sense of what atheists actually think and why. He’s posted at length in other threads about what atheists think and need and how they treat religious believers, but essentially nothing he’s said on those subjects has been correct. I don’t presume to speak for all atheists and I also know you can’t lead a horse to water, but I figured it was worth a try. So I’d like to address some of GEEPERS’ comments and some general questions people might have about atheists. I’d like to keep this civil and handle the topic with minimal initial sarcasm.
Starting with the obvious question: “Why are you an atheist?”
If I had to boil it down to a short answer I’d say it’s because the idea of gods makes no sense to me. The more you look at any story about what any god is supposed to be, the more obvious it is that these are stories made up by people as part of an attempt to understand the world and the universe around them. A god who is just like a person - looks like one, feels more or less human emotions like love and anger and jealousy, cares about people on an individual level, needs worship and very exacting codes of conduct? That’s not humans made in god’s image. It’s clearly the opposite. And further, there’s the old problem of evil - there’s a more or less all-powerful being, but the world is still the way it is? That’s not a problem caused by sin and free will. It’s a story that was written to explain why the world is the way it is, and to say it’ll be OK eventually. I understand the appeal of that kind of story, but I don’t think it’s anything but a story.
“People across all kinds of cultures and throughout histories have religions, and many of them are pretty similar. Doesn’t that suggest they’re on to something?”
It tells me that religion addresses some very deep needs for people - the need for acceptance, community, guidance, love, death, a sense of importance and purpose - and I respect those needs because I feel them too. But no, I don’t think it means religion is on to something, nevermind that on important particulars, many of those religions sharply contradict each other. And I don’t believe in any argument like “A million subscribers can’t be wrong!” because they absolutely can be wrong.
“Did something happen to you to make you an atheist?”
Other than religious services and schooling? No. My experience is that very few atheists lose faith because of some terrible experience. I just started thinking critically about what I was hearing in services and from my family and decided it didn’t work for me.
“Are you angry at god?”
No. I’ll grant that the Judeochristian god sounds like a horrible character, but I can’t be angry at it because I don’t think it’s real in the first place.
“Do you hate religion?”
No. I do often hate what it does to people and what people do because of, or justified by, religion.
“Do you think religion is evil?”
No. I think religion, like politics, society, and just about everything else, reflects the species that created it. That species is flawed and can often be exasperating, cruel, petty, small-minded, and plain old stupid. I don’t say that because I hate people - I don’t. But I’m often frustrated by their shortcomings.
“Do you think religious people are stupid?”
Not all of them. I don’t have much respect for people who accept religions uncritically, who won’t voice doubts, who won’t acknowledge any flaws or potential flaws in their faiths, who reject science whenever it’s inconvenient, or who won’t admit that our society has changed over the millennia, and who don’t think anyone can have an honest difference of opinion over religion or its interpretations. It goes without saying that I have a very low opinion of people who use selective readings of scriptures to justify bigotry and other absurdities.
“Do you think religion should be stamped out or banned?”
No. I don’t think the world would necessarily be a better place if everybody was an atheist (and I don’t think that would ever happen anyway). I don’t think religious belief should be suppressed. I do think the separation of church and state is a vital principle that needs to be respected for the good of government as well as for the survival and independence of religious institutions. I’m opposed to religion-based barbarism and ignorance and the things that happen as a result.
I think that’ll do for a general start. To address some specific comments by GEEPRS:
As a general rule I don’t demand evidence for a religious belief unless somebody asserts that it’s true and that’s the only way it could be. If you believe in a god who animated the laws of science rather than making the world recently and employing miracles that aren’t supported by evidence and which don’t stand up to much scrutiny, I don’t have an argument with you.
There are people who look for god and don’t find it, so I think you should reconsider your attitude toward them. And no, I’m not talking about myself.
That’s sometimes true, but not always. Many religious people are far from experts on scripture - in the case of Christianity in particular, scriptural expertise is not required. Not all atheists are experts on religious doctrine either, but some are very well-educated on the subject.
I think a good and open-minded skeptical atheist won’t hesitate to agree with any religious believer on a point that is widely accepted. Not on, say, the existence of a god, but on historical points that are supported by evidence.
No, it most certainly hasn’t. There are some historical events that are described in the Bible and are supported by archeology, and many that aren’t - including the miracles and a lot of other major points like the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus. These stories are contradicted by biology, genetics, archaeology, physics, and I’m probably forgetting many others. Scientific results aren’t perfect, but I find open, reviewable, repeatable scientific evidence much more reliable than (let’s face it) ancient myths from people who generally didn’t make science a priority because they had more pressing survival concerns, and who were not as interested in giving an accurate view of history as they were in passing on lessons, their culture, and their historical claims.
There is plenty, but if you fall back on the ‘absence of evidence’ argument every time, I suspect you will successfully insulate your opinion from most challenges. But that’s not going to convince a lot of people.
While the U.S. is predominantly Christian, in general atheists don’t have anything in particular against Christianity. It’s one religion among many, and on the balance I don’t think it’s better or worse than the others. On the other hand when you see the flaws of one religion on near-daily basis and you never encounter others, it’s possible to build up some more resentment toward the first one.
Squeezing every drop of enjoyment out of life sounds like a good idea, but the fact that there’s no god or afterlife doesn’t mean life is meaningless. You can take that attitude in a sort of cosmic, infinite long view, but it doesn’t help you very much if you’re trying to make an ethical decision or even make a lunch order. Eventually humanity will probably be gone, the Earth will be destroyed by the Sun, and the universe will undergo heat death. Does that mean nothing matters? I think what it means is that your life is yours, and you’re the only one who can assign meaning to it.
Atheists don’t have to be scientists. Atheism and theism are both opinions on whether or not any gods exist. The attitudes people take in how they support those positions and examine potential evidence reflects on the individuals, not on the case for atheism or for theism. I do think that as a whole, atheists are much more interested in science and where science is going to take our understanding of the universe. On that score, religious people already know the answer and sometimes have a tendency to try to force the science to suit the answer they started with.
Just the miracle parts and the god parts.
That always depends on what you consider evidence, which is going to vary from person to person.
[QUOTE=GEEPERS;15003728Atheists want to wipe every trace of Christianity from public view.[/quote]
Most of them don’t, no - certainly that is not what people mean when they talk about the separation of church and state, and you don’t have to be an atheist to think that’s a good idea. And again, atheists are not specifically biased against Christianity. They don’t believe in any gods, not just Jesus.
Atheists already think the most important parts of the Bible (from a religious standpoint) are fiction. They don’t need the rest to be fiction, although in many cases that is what they think.
Like I said earlier, I’d prefer to keep the IPU-type rhetorical devices to a minimum. I’ve used them and I understand the purpose they serve in an argument, but I also understand why people object to them (it’s not hard to understand).