Firstly, the appraisal that atheists are forthright, pushy, shrill or even “Snobby”, says more about those who complain than it does them.

To quote Gandhi:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.

Nice to hear from a theist who is open to discussion, unlike others who have posted here, mentioning no names!

Speaking from personal experience, I have found it frustrating to attempt any kind of dialogue with theists on religious themed sites, other than the Kiwi M&M one, as you are usually treated with some disdain and often outright hostility.

Your cheeky suggestion that perhaps I don’t want to believe is something I have seriously considered, but on reflection I don’t believe that is what motivates my atheism.

Trying to be objective, I can actually see the appeal of having “Religious Faith” as outwardly it appear to provide some much needed comfort and reassurance for many who have it, but the down side would appear to be suspension of critical thought and logic for example.

I read Anthony Flew’s controversial book: “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” over the Xmas holiday. It was interesting to say the least, but in all honesty he can be summed up as saying that the deist god he finally believed in falls neatly into either:

1) God exists, but doesn’t care if I believe.
2) God exists, but doesn’t want me to believe.

So, I’m still solidly atheistic in perspective.

Ah, good-o. There is much in the way of proper theological argument to be had concerning morals/ethics and the nature of God. But they are at a much less important level than basic right for people to be protected and that ideas are not (and martrying oneself in defence of an indefensible idea doesn’t count).

I’m fond of I Thessalonians 5:21 and Proverbs 14:15. Your Bible commands me to be adverserial. Just like the really cool notion of a rather Faustian ha-Satan faithfully performing God’s instructions in spirit and to the letter. In this. (This notion of Satan performs no evil. His job is to tempt. He gets upset just as much as God does if you fail.) The pride thing is a private joke shared by Satan and God in reference to his petitioning God before the scheduled conference because he knew he was the most capable of performing the difficult and dirty job.

My primary beef against God (or rather, some strangely popular images of him) is the commanding or condoning of hideous atrocities. People who take care to define their deity sufficiently to make sure their deity cannot be used to justify great evils escape my criticism entirely (I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a few such people). Jingoistic fan-boys of some morally infantile monster, in contrast will continue to receive scorn from the likes of me.

> Calling each other idiots for believing what we do
> isn’t cool at all with me

Well, just calling people idiots is not cool, but doing go with references to why some idea (or person) is stupid is very often justifiable and is sometimes virtuous. Anyway, it’s not really intellectual capacity that’s being objected to. Rather, it’s the self-serving beliefs, hypocrisy and inconsistency in general. I’m sure you too would call adults who believe in the Quantum Mechanical Santa Claus idiots of some kind (self-absorbed idiots entertaining autistic fantasies, even).

Sure, calling or implying someone is idiotic is rude, but the harm is minimal. After all, it’s so easy to just call someone an idiot that the one doing so attracts a charge of suspected idiocy in return unless they can justify their charge. Vigorously opposing the right to call someone an idiot means denying the opportunity for justifications and the shaping of worthwhile ideas. (Most often, it’s only necessary to dismiss an idea as stupid, but unfortunately the adherents of a stupid idea get defensive and take it all personally.)

> it’s obvious you’ve reasoned your way to a position,
> and so have I.

I don’t think that’s very obvious for either of us, yet. I’m doing my best.

I agree with you – As a Christian I should be (and am) comfortable/secure enough with what I believe that you can pose questions without getting some kind of knee-jerk reaction (eg. whipping out Psalm 14:1). Calling each other idiots for believing what we do isn’t cool at all with me – it’s obvious you’ve reasoned your way to a position, and so have I.

@Paul – After I read ” it would be against my nature to believe” I thought i’d cheekily suggest a 4th option:

4) God exists, but I don’t want to believe.

@Erin – “all forgiving, all loving” I’d be interested in what you think we as Christians believe in regards to God’s forgiveness & love – and why you feel He fails.

Do you realise that by saying that, you’ve just debased your own god and revealed the insincerity and the worthlessness of your faith (from your god’s point of view)?

If there is a god and he is as you describe or as described in your scriptures, you have more cause to fear the fires of Hell than the atheists.

You said: “wouldnt it be really funny if it turned out there was a god and he judged you all”

For me personally, one of the differences between religious faith and scientific belief is that religious faith allows no possibility of being wrong.

So, yes, I do entertain the possibility that I am wrong on many things. Hence the use of the word “Probably” used in this campaign.

As for your specific question, like many religious questions, you run into a definitional problem. Unless you can come up with a reasonable definition for how something can “exist” outside of time, I think the question is nonsensical.

I don’t deny anything. I simply do not have the evidence that would compel me to believe. Any omniscient god would know what evidence would convince me, so I think there are three possibilities:

1) God exists, but doesn’t care if I believe.
2) God exists, but doesn’t want me to believe.
3) God doesn’t exist.

Given what I’ve seen, the first two are the same as the third one to me.

And if heaven/hell exist, any god who would condemn me to hell because I didn’t believe while knowing it would be against my nature to believe can only be described as sadistic.

People of various religions often belittle people with differing beliefs, too. It’s not just an atheist thing.

Invariably, beliefs of the sort that somehow need to be protected from criticism or ridicule are those that are self-serving, craven attempts at bolstering one’s ego, very often at the expense of other people. They require a great deal of smugness to maintain, even if the smugness is borrowed. Some beliefs come with implicit statements on the worth of various races or easily identified groups of people and go so far as to encourage their extermination. (God hates Chaldeans for instance.)

In short, people tend to believe in what they find convenient to believe.

In the case of beliefs with implied acceptance of injustice, believers are stuck in an untenable position of either having to condone outrageously inhumane injustices or employing a great deal of arrogance. The arrogance is in claiming the “proper” or perhaps “fluffy” interpretation of scripture, whether it’s the believer’s own arrogance or that of the brilliant 21st Century theologians who only now, have determined the correct interpretation.

There’s also the problem that the people who champion the rights of beliefs to be protected almost always include a set of other beliefs on which they do not hesitate to pour scorn: The belief (by adults) in a quantum mechanical Santa Claus (“The Secret”), for example. (Belief in The Secret requires one to regard all the suffering in the world to be fault of the ones who are suffering because they do not wish heard enough for ponies and rice pudding).

The QMSC believers go on about how important it is for their beliefs to be respected, too.

BTW, an amusing anecdote: I’ve recently had a conversation with one believer in alternative medicines who strongly opposes the claim that there is a great deal of quackery and fads associated with it. In order to maintain the protection of her belief, she found it necessary to tolerate expressions like “Wouldn’t it be nice if all the Jews just… disappeared” (so long as those believers weren’t actually doing anything directly to the Jews, while at the same time, she would absolutely not tolerate any expression of belief regarding the value of other people’s beliefs. It’s just a small sample of the pathology that comes with the idea that beliefs are to be protected from ridicule. (And she regards _me_ as smug and insensitive to other people’s feelings.)