Blog Archives

Why do People Become Atheists?

I’ve posited that atheists do not want ultimate accountability to God, and that is part of their motivation for denying God’s existence.  Atheists try hard to resist that, but a few have been forthright about it.  Philosopher Thomas Nagel, for example, wrote:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

Now, the Atheist Camel comes clean as well.  When contemplating what the reaction would be to bulletproof evidence that there is a god, he said:

I’ll proffer that it depends on the god’s persona. If it is a hands (or trunk, or tentacles) off god, who created us and lets us live out our lives as independent beings unfettered by its irrational  threats and demands; perhaps a fun loving kind of being that finds our behavior amusing or disgusting, but nevertheless nonjudgmental–  perhaps asking only for an occasional acknowledgement and thank you now and then I’d have no problem with it. Acknowledge and move on. (source, emphasis added)

So he’s fine as long as there is minimal intrusion in his life.  Now, what if this deity was the God of the Bible and did demand certain things?

Where scientists never before bothered to contemplate the supernatural, many of them, and our freethinking brethren, would now kowtow to this God’s demands.  But many more would turn their attention toward one objective…find a way to destroy it.  An underground movement, an army of partisans, dedicated to freedom of thought, rationality, fairness and conscience battling not only for the freedom to live life free from omnipotent oppression and irrationality, but for the freedom and right to die and fade into oblivion without pain and fear.

If there were a proven God of the Bible in all its horrendous glory man would be compelled to stop killing each other. The thinking among us would turn our undivided attention to find a way to kill this God monster … once and for all. (source, emphasis added)

So the truth comes out.  As long as the Atheist Camel gets to live as he chooses, with no interference from a deity, he’s fine.  But the moment there is an expectation of behavior and a requisite final judgement, he thinks that humans should join together and kill that God.

What can I say?  This confirms my original theory about atheists wanting to avoid final judgment classic-D&D-style — rolling a 20-sider and saying “I disbelieve.”  I just wish more atheists were this honest.

The Parable of the Year 4500 [PARODY]

A warning to the sarcastically impaired… this post is meant in jest, but it raises a valid point that bears addressing by atheists of OUR time. Before it’s even a question from speed readers or skimmers, I am not de-converting.

By Supportstorm (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

It has been horrid living under the Christian oppression for my entire life.  I was only a Christian because my family raised me so, and only remained so because it was easy in a primarily Christian society.

But I have, at last, thrown off the shackles of Christian oppression and joined the Brights of society, in knowing the truth that there is no God.

I now post my anti-testimony so that others may find the strength to resist the mindvirus of Christianity.  But let me start with a little history…

Christians in 4500 point to two incontrovertible “miracles” proving the existence of their god.  The first is the so-called Resurrection, when their zombie lord allegedly rose from the dead.

The second allegedly happened five days after an anonymous writer of what they used to call a “blog” wrote this:

If one evening, every star in the sky began to move in unison, and converge to form an illuminated three dimensional Latin Cross that filled the entire void, leaving the rest of the sky utterly black, devoid of any stars or planets; with Jesus’ face superimposed upon it, speaking in all languages at once its expectations of us, and for good measure it simultaneously rained human blood across the planet; and this all lasted for 24 hrs so that every person on Earth could view the event for themselves … I’d buy it.  I’d become the worlds greatest Christian.  Or if it were equally strong evidence of some other god being, I’d be first in line to at least apologize to it for my denial and happily sacrifice to it, grovel at its hooves, or otherwise demonstrate my reverence.. (source)

Five days after that, it happened.  Millions of eyewitnesses saw it, and thousands posted accounts online and newspapers carried stories and the media frenzy was born.

And so was Christian oppression.  Because who could argue with an actual appearance of God?

But I echo the arguments of many critics of this so-called “event” of mid-2012. I now do not believe it happened.  The facile replies of the Christian so-called apologists lack so much luster as to be incredible.  Even fanciful.

So, here are my questions. . .

First, Why did God wait so long?  Allegedly, your “savior” rose from the dead in the year 33.  Yet, this fictitious event didn’t occur until 2012 — almost 2000 years later.  It seems to me that if God truly cared about humanity, he would never let questions about his existence happen, since you go to hell if you don’t believe in him.

So he wouldn’t have waited.  He would have made the first great miracle, the Resurrection, more obvious.  The Resurrection, in fact, is all he should have needed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was.  People would believe then.

The fact that your god needed a second miracle proves he is inept and not worthy of worship.

Second, Where’s the video of this event?  Christian apologists claim that as a supernatural event, this couldn’t have been put on video.  Therefore, all of the video from the time that shows a typical, non-rearranged night sky is what we’d expect to see.

Well, it seems to me that if God expected this miracle to convince everyone of his existence, that he’d leave more than just a few eyewitnesses.  I know that it is claimed the “entire planet” saw this, but that isn’t good enough.  The Resurrection was supposedly seen by over 500 people who were still alive at the time of writing, but I can’t question them now, either.  Therefore, both miracles suffer from lack of adequate attestation.  Which leads us to …

Why do you expect me to take this on eyewitness testimony alone?  Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.  I can’t question any of these people today, and supposedly there’s no actual video of this event.  The hundreds of blog posts that still exist are no proof, since the Church could have put those together and claimed they were authentic.

I bet they even destroyed the counter-testimony, the people of the era who said this event never happened.  There was bound to be lots of those, as I understand atheist activism was popular on the Internet of 2012.  Where are all of the atheists who would have decried this obvious Christian propaganda?

Destroyed by the Church, that’s where.

So that’s my case.  That is why I now stand with the atheists.  Go ahead, theists.  Prove me wrong.

In other words, given the space of time, people will find old ways to disbelieve new miracles.  All of these arguments are repackaged versions of anti-Resurrection arguments.  Nice try, Atheist Camel.  Believe because of the Resurrection, or move along.  It is the only sign you’re getting.