Most other major religions are very live-and-let-live and wait for you to come to them. Christianity invites argument. It is one of the most in-your-face religions that atheists come up against. It is the dominant paradigm of western culture and becomes a target for that reason.

Some thoughts, in no particular order:

• Many atheists are simply keen on philosophy and debate and are looking for a good challenge.
  
• It is likely that some atheists are reacting to real or percieved insult and injury at the hands of the Church.
  
• Atheists are like everyone else. Most live average lives with no particular desire for controversy. Others are dogmatic and evangelical in their atheism and will be glad to carry the fight to you.
  
• There are people who just like to make other people miserable. Some atheists are like that as are some Christians.
  
• Some atheists are simply pissed off by the "Turn or Burn!!" crap handed to them by ignorant Christians. Then it becomes a sport to taunt the bear by poking at it with a stick.
  
• The atheist oftens encounters smug self-satisfaction, condescension and condemnation when dealing with Christians and so responds in kind. ***This board is a welcome exception.***
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
Some are of the live and let live school otheres want to convert you...

---

Thank you for those very insightful thoughts. They are a pleasure to read, and really answer the question for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete:
I was wondering why atheists frequently seem to be hugely keen on debating/arguing with Christians - do they exert as much effort with regard to Hinduism or other deist faiths?

---

I think willyburger's points are excellent. Personally, in regard to Pete's question posted above, I find that as an Atheist I do exert equal energy on other irrational belief systems.

Astrology, for example, gives many people enjoyment and some people claim to get good advice from it. I could say "Live and let live," but instead I feel compelled to reason with them, analyzing why they would believe in astrology, and yes, trying to talk them out of it!

In day to day living, there are countless irrational behaviors and beliefs that I find I'm always addressing, because as willyburger pointed out, I love debating. But also because irrational things seem to push a button in me, "setting me off."

See, I actually think that irrational belief systems are destructive and dangerous. I truly believe our rational mind, our sense of reason, is our most evolved attribute. Irrational thinking negates that quality, and so, I argue against Past-Life Regression, Christian Scientists, Tarot Card readers, Psychics, etc. I include Theism in this list as well.

quote:

---

It is one of the most in-your-face religions that atheists come up against

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I'll also venture that Christianity is a safe target. What's the worst an angry Christian is allowed to do? Love you? Pray for you? Avoid you? Hehe!

---

I will agree with that for the most part.

OTOH, here in the US, we have extremists who profess Christianity yet will plant bombs in abortion clinics.

And I'm not trying to paint Christians as dangerous extremists but make the point that Christianity doesn't automatically make every one of them non-violent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
...
I truly believe our rational mind, our sense of reason, is our most evolved attribute.
...

---

Reason,

I agree that our rational faculties give us a higher standing than less evolved dumb animals. We are able to exert power over less rational parts of God's creation (or "our environment" if you prefer). However that power is not always exercised wisely, and we are damaging creation / nature / environment. Our splendid evolution doesn't seem to prevent us damaging our own life support system. For this we need, I believe, some sense of moral responsibility, which a higher faculty than mere reason. (Just as reason is a higher faculty than mere physicality).

It is noticeable that in the last 150 years the economy has wanted more and more people of reason - people with numerical or scientific abilites. But today's economy is looking for a more subtle yet sophisticated range of abilities - customer service, communictaion skills, creativity, relationship management, consultancy skills, telephone skills. The merely intellectual who cannot get on with others, sell his/her wares, influence, motivate etc is less in demand.

Reason is important but there is more to life.

(Of course, you, Reason, are important!)

I hope that makes some sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
For this we need, I believe, some sense of moral responsibility, which is a higher faculty than mere reason.

---

Couldn't disagree more.

Morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Moral responsibility is simply the ability to be obedient to Laws created extrinsically, usually from God. Reason, on the other hand, determines what is moral and ethical in the first place.

From Reason, Ethics are created. And living up to those ethics is how we can achieve our greatest good.

Your post, ptarmigan, illustrates this point. It's through your wonderful ability to reason that you are aware of how we are destroying our environment, etc. And it's through reason that we create ways to avoid such catastrophies.

Don't get me wrong....I'm all for Ethics. But morals? I don't think they do people much good, really. If someone wants to make a graven image of the Lord Thy God, that's an immoral act, but honestly, I don't think it does that much harm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
Couldn't disagree more.

---

Right back at you.

quote:

---

Morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Moral responsibility is simply the ability to be obedient to Laws created extrinsically, usually from God. Reason, on the other hand, determines what is moral and ethical in the first place.

---

You're right here - morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Morality isn't even a faculty. However, aligning moral responsibility with God is erroneous. God may be one source of morality if you believe such a being exists, and there are certainly others. Unfortunately (as I'll explain), "reason" isn't one of them.

quote:

---

From Reason, Ethics are created. And living up to those ethics is how we can achieve our greatest good.

---

Here's the first problem. While I agree that ethics source from reason, you need to start with something else; before you can conclude that A is good and B isn't, and thus create an ethic that says A should be normative, you need to decide what "good" actually represents.

That's morality. It's source is irrelevant (at least for the purposes of this argument), but it must exist in order for reason to be able to create ethics.

quote:

---

Your post, ptarmigan, illustrates this point. It's through your wonderful ability to reason that you are aware of how we are destroying our environment, etc. And it's through reason that we create ways to avoid such catastrophies. p

---

Why bother? "reason" tells me the Earth will in most probability be able to support me for the rest of my life - it certainly will unless I give up smoking soon - so what difference does it make to me? Following that ethic won't improve my life even a little bit. Perhaps I need to decide why it's ethical in the first place. That means examining the underlying morality.

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong....I'm all for Ethics. But morals? I don't think they do people much good, really. If someone wants to make a graven image of the Lord Thy God, that's an immoral act, but honestly, I don't think it does that much harm.

---

Is it immoral or merely proscribed for other reasons? Careful not to juxtapose morality with ethics here. It's easy to do.

quote:

---

SO we use REASON to take a clear moral absolute such as that commandment and basically over-ride it. Without reason, we'd still be slaughtering animals to appease God. It's reason that led us out of the Dark Ages. Moral absolutism is what led us there.

---

Oh yes, those ancients, they didn't have a clue, did they? Bunch of morons. Not one of them could think. Lucky for that fantastic Modern invention Reason (capital "R"). It's a shame that Socrates never knew what an ignorant dolt he was.

Sorry, chronological bigotry such as this sets me off. Back to the point.

I don't see anyone arguing for moral absolutism here. If they are, they should realise that it's probably impossible to define an absolute. However, my point holds: ethics is not possible without an overriding morality. My friend, you've elevated "Reason" way above its actual usefulness. When reason can tell me why I shouldn't beat my children, or what type of music I prefer, then perhaps I'll revisit the scope of reason.

[damn typos]

In many ways, I confess to losing the debate here. You make excellent points, and I have to acknowledge your intellectual prowess. I'm a little intimidated!

However, I think our difference of opinion is based on differing definitions of exactly what "morals" and "ethics" are. I always, (and I may be wrong this) assumed that morals are codes of conduct that are established not out of reasoned analysis, but out of direct commands from God.

I differentiated morals from ethics by believing Ethics to be codes of conduct based on reason.

So, in my view, homosexuality between two consenting adults may be immoral, but it's not unethical. It's only immoral because a Diety said so. When we try to come up with reasons for why this behavior would be unethical, we have no real arguments.

Rationalising morality to formulate rules doesn't always work.

Ethics tends to be systematic, and more about trying to make explicit the rules that govern our behaviour in relation to our morality (can you derive "ought" from "is"). Ethics, to me is simply something to study, and doesn't have any bearing on our intrinsic morality. Morality is something we do, or aspire to, Ethics is simply dry study.

We may think killing is wrong, but how many of us would really hesitate if a child was being tortured. (don't go to deep into this). It is very very hard to overcome natural moral instincts with reason. You may rationalise your moral instincts to prove you really do have a reasonable morality, but in a situation of stress you would go with gut instinct, rather than sitting down and being reasonable.
So the way of changing this instinct is not directly thinking about morality, but by greater reference to "others" which is not limited to theism by any means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pete:
I was wondering why atheists frequently seem to be hugely keen on debating/arguing with Christians - do they exert as much effort with regard to Hinduism or other deist faiths?

Assuming (perhaps falsely) that atheists also tend towards a "this life only, then you're gone" worldview, isn't it a bit strange to waste so much time engaging in this activity? Unless, of course, what primarily drives them is reaction AGAINST Christianity/God in some way - sort of Christophobia.

Any comments?

---

I think that this has a lot to do with the fact that atheism is not a position that can be adopted due to reason alone.

It is impossible to disprove the existance of something, so therefore it requires an additional non-rational motivation to adopt the position of atheism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.

---

And it is not difficult or unusual to have these. I think that this adds to the reasons listed above. I would like to add another.

I was so impressed with Willyburger's list above that I have refrained from adding what I actually think. But since no one else has mentioned it, I'll throw it in.

I agree with everything that has been written so far. I also think, however, that there is an element of Christianity being attacked for the same reason Christ was.

Jesus taught the truth, which made those who disliked the truth uncomfortable. He asked people to give up their evil ways, which made people involved in evil deeds unhappy and angry. Evil spirits especially hated Him on sight, because they knew who He was and what He stood for.

I doubt that these factors figure prominently in the conscious thought of most atheists. Previous comments have pointed out plenty of other motivations, and I don't attribute bad motives to atheists in general - perhaps especially because of the sins of Christianity. But the forces of hell are, I think, happy to use whatever justification they can to deny the truth.

quote:

---

I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.

---

I have. Those motivated by a bad experience of life. As I said to someone in the cafe the other day, its quite a hard intuitive leap to make from:
"My life sucks"
To:
"There is a God who loves me".

Admittedly, a lot of the people I know who feel like this had their views confirmed by a bad experience of religion, but in most cases that was not the cause.

Let's face it, atheism can make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to feel "My life sucks and no one gives a blink, therefore there is nothing out there".

And there are those who do not and cannot understand love, because they have never experienced it. If your whole life has been about people using each other, and love has always been a conditional reward of success, then how can you believe in a God that loves you for no reason? The Christian God is therefore a very good target - Christians clearly haven't seen this important truth.

Once upon a time, when I was a very outspoken atheist, it was two things that made me argue with Christians especially. Firstly, they all believed in this God who loved them, and didn't understand that if there were such a God, He must have an ulterior motive. Secondly, they tried to tell me at great length that He loved me too, which was clearly nonsense.

<Looks faintly embarrassed>
Also, it wasn't fair that all these people with their easy lives and their warm, happy God feelings should be allowed to get away with living in a dream world, when the rest of us couldn't.

Yes, well.

Peace,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I was an atheist for some years (from about age 9 through to 15) but NOT because I'd had a bad experience of religion as such. It was because I was interested in prehistoric life/palaeontolgy, and what featured right at the start of the Bible seemed at the time such 'rubbish' compared to what I knew of the evolution of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadow-lover:
I have. Those motivated by a bad experience of life. As I said to someone in the cafe the other day, its quite a hard intuitive leap to make from:
"My life sucks"
To:
"There is a God who loves me".

Admittedly, a lot of the people I know who feel like this had their views confirmed by a bad experience of religion, but in most cases that was not the cause.

Let's face it, atheism can make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to feel "My life sucks and no one gives a blink, therefore there is nothing out there".

---

Sorry, I have to disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I suppose it possible that there could be dispassionate atheists who have adopted atheism as a working hypothesis, however, I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.

---

I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.

The subtle difference between what I and most atheists think and what you are arguing is this.

I lack belief that there is a god or gods.

I don't definitely believe "There is no god."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Collins:
I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.

The subtle difference between what I and most atheists think and what you are arguing is this.

I lack belief that there is a god or gods.

I don't definitely believe "There is no god."

---

quote:

---

Then are you not an agnostic, and not an atheist?

---

No. An agnostic is someone who says he/she can't ever know one way or another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Then are you not an agnostic, and not an atheist?

---

Sorry, I don't think that was clear. What I meant was:

Agnosticism = absence of belief in God.

Atheism = belief in the non-existence of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Collins:
No. An agnostic is someone who says he/she can't ever know one way or another.

To go back to my life on Mars example, you could (in principle) resolve the question once and for all by going to Mars and looking. So I wouldn't be "agnostic" about life on Mars. It would be possible to find out.

---

I agree with John Collins on the definitions of Atheist vs. Agnostic. I see anyone who believes in a God or gods as being a Theist. In contrast, a person who doesn't have a belief in a God or gods is an Atheist. As an Atheist, I am NOT saying definitively "There is no God." I'm instead merely acknowledging my lack of belief.

I think many Atheists call themselves "Agnostics" because it sounds friendlier or something. If an Agnostic's position is "I don't know whether or not there is a God," then I'd say I am an Agnostic.

Someone suggested that maybe Atheists are Atheists because they are unhappy people. Quite to the contrary, that's why I was a Christian. I had become a Christian because I was at such a low point in my life that I needed the comfort of an Imaginary Friend to see me through it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
I agree with John Collins on the definitions of Atheist vs. Agnostic. I see anyone who believes in a God or gods as being a Theist. In contrast, a person who doesn't have a belief in a God or gods is an Atheist. As an Atheist, I am NOT saying definitively "There is no God." I'm instead merely acknowledging my lack of belief.

---

quote:

---

Anyone who is being rigorously rational would surely adopt a position of agnosticism in preference to atheism.

---

From Cambridge dictionary Online:

quote:

---

atheist noun -- someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

agnostic noun, adjective -- (someone) not knowing, or believing that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

---

Other dictionaries give subtle variations on these, but it looks to me that atheism is addressing faith and agnosticism is referring to knowledge.

So an atheist can either say "I don't believe in God" or I believe there is no God."

An agnostic would say "I don't know there is a God" or " I can't know there is a God."

Subtle but important differences. Or am I just repeating what everyone else has said?

It doesn't appear that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Wouldn't agnostics, by definition, express a disbelief in God? An atheist, however, may or may not base his belief on agnosticism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by willyburger:
Is agnosticism and theism mutually exclusive.

---

I think in a sense it is[ possible to be both a theist and an atheist at the same time!

quote:

---

I can believe in God as a metaphor for our own creativity, judgement, and destruction, while simultaneously proclaiming no belief whatsoever in an actual Diety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
We seem to be playing Wittgensteins word Games with atheist and Agnostic.

I think i agree that Atheism is a faith system.

---

I was trying to illustrate something I've been thinking about for a while now. I'm convinced that theism and atheism are belief systems. I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means. You, Reason, and maybe John Collins would call belief in God irrational. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It was proposed by a friend of mine, a committed Theist, that while belief is non-rational, it is not necessarily irrational. His major point being that existence and reality cannot be fully known through rational means; that the non-rational aspect is at least as valid as the rational. This non-rational aspect would be completely subjective and internalized to the believer.

Now while I can't prove that God exists by rational means, neither can I disprove it, so I would have to at least admit to and consider the possibility.

I'm having fun dancing around the Fideism Tree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by willyburger:
I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means.

---

I would agree with this. In fact I consider it an article of my faith that God does not show Himself in any provable way, in order to preserve human freedom. (Convenient, heh, heh.)

But in one way, it is illogical to reject a belief in God.

Life passes very quickly - and then what? Maybe nothing.

But things such as near-death experiences strongly suggest that conscious existence continues in an afterlife. Not proof, of course. There are alternative explanations, but they are evidence none-the-less.

Logically, if you believe in God and live according to some religion - and then there is nothing when you die, what will be lost?

But if the reverse is true, and there turns out to be a heaven and a hell manifestly ruled by God - well there you are, um, maybe not in such a good spot. Or maybe with a merciful God it doesn't matter - but it just might.

A fun thing to think about - except that one or the other really is true, and within a very few years you are going to know.

The logical thing would be to be prepared.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

If you believe in God and live according to some religion - and then there is nothing when you die, what will be lost?

But if the reverse is true, and there turns out to be a heaven and a hell manifestly ruled by God - well there you are, um, maybe not in such a good spot. Or maybe with a merciful God it doesn't matter - but it just might.

---

Freddy,

Accepting God as a sort of insurance policy? Is that what Pascal's Wager is?

Well, here's my response to that: If I accept God merely to obtain the goodies He offers and avoid the punishments he threatens, I am nothing more than a shallow sycophant. Anyone with any integrity would refuse such bribes and threats. For example:

Christ was in the wilderness, and Satan made him an offer; Christ could have everything if he would simply get down on his knees and worship Satan. And Christ said something to the effect of "No way, Jose."

And that's what I say to your proposal of accepting bribes from a supposed God. Essentially, religions have created a God that uses the same tactic as Satan did in the wilderness. "I'll give you everything if you bow down and worship me." But worse than that, there's an implicit threat: "And if you don't, I'll throw you into the Lake of Fire!"

But if I accepted God's threat/bribe simply to save my own hide from the tortures of Hell, I'd be losing my integrity in the process. I might make it to Heaven, but I will have been untrue to myself in the process, and find myself in eternity with a God I don't respect.

How can I not respect this God? Well....if He is a God that is going to punish people simply for being true to their own reason and intellect, He's not much of a God. He's more of a Big Meanie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
But if I accepted God's threat/bribe simply to save my own hide...

---

Well, when you put it that way it does sound pretty bad, doesn't it!

Still, something happens when you die - and I consider near-death experiences reasonable evidence that consciousness continues. I wouldn't think about this as a threat or a reward, it's just that expectations, such as that life does not end at death, have an inevitable effect on how a person thinks about life.

There is no objective falsifiable evidence.

No-one has produced any. That means it is reasonable to say that there is no God. I will admit it may be wrong, but it does not need faith to say that.

I will change my opinion if somebody can show me how it is reasonable to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence. Obviously, there will be no empirical grounds, but what about a philosophical argument to show that something that I accept as true I have no evidence for.

Now, I am an atheist because I have thought very deeply about the subject and come to the conclusion that there is no God.

I actually find it insulting to be told that it is a faith of mine or that agnosticism is more intellectually rigorous. It isn't. In some cases, agnosticism is intellectual laziness. It is not being willing to think the issues through. Not in all cases, though.

I will get off my soap box now. Everyone is more than welcome to ignore the above.

Now, onto confession time. My wife became a Christian over a year ago. She has been trying to convert me in a subtle way. To be fair to her, I have taken the trouble to seek out people that could answer the questions that I have. Her knowledge of the Bible isn't as great as mine (from my Evolution/Creation debating) and she isn't as well read on philosophy (but she has common sense, an awesome ability to keep our three children and me well fed/clothed etc and she also has a life) Hence, me ending up here.

Plenty of credible studies have been done (Morse, Ring, etc.) which show that these experiences are amazingly consistent regardless of the beliefs or culture of the individuals involved.

I'm not saying that they are proof of anything. I also grant that there are reasonable alternative explanations besides the reality of life after death - such as that they are chemically based halucinations. I'm only saying that they are evidence that is both objective and falsifiable. Obviously the experiences themselves are not objective, only the consistent patterns of the reports.

It's true that some people come to whatever position they hold through laziness but that holds for theists, atheists and agnostics equally. You obviously have done much thinking about the issue. You disbelieve in God because empirical evidence cannot be produced. Fair enough, but I gather you do not absolutely believe there is no God?

These are subtle differences but I believe they are able to be categorized. (as I said before, useful for purposes of discussion) I would propose the two views might be labeled hard vs. soft atheism. If those categories are acceptable, then I would state that hard atheism is definately a belief. Soft atheism would admittedly be less definable.

My original exercise was to posit whether the three views are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that someone who does not believe in God because of a lack of empirical evidence has arrived at atheism through agnosticism. I was trying to sharpen the distinction between belief and knowledge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
There is no objective falsifiable evidence.

No-one has produced any. That means it is reasonable to say that there is no God. I will admit it may be wrong, but it does not need faith to say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by willyburger:
I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Lack of evidence for the existence of something is not proof of its non-existence.

---

I OWN AN INVISIBLE THIRTY-FOOT FIRE-BREATHING DRAGON. HE LIVES ON THE ROOF OF MY APARTMENT. I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN HEAR WHAT HE SAYS AND ONLY I CAN SEE HIM. LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF MY DRAGON'S NON-EXISTENCE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
EVERYBODY, QUICK! GIVE ME MONEY TO BUY MY DRAGON FOOD! IF YOU DON'T, HE'S GONNA BLOW FIRE ALL OVER NEW YORK!!!!!!

---