The Atheist Blogger

An article I wrote for our student newspaper.

If there is one question I get asked more than any other, it would be “Why don’t you believe in God?”. Rather than going down the popular route of trying to work out which God the inquirer is talking about, I like to respond with reasons I don’t believe in any gods. To be an atheist, you don’t just have to disbelieve the existence of one god; you have to disbelieve in all of them.

By far the most persuasive reason I disbelieve in gods is the sheer lack of evidence for them in the first place. A theist might argue that all of existence is evidence enough for god, but the problem with this conclusion is that it does not explain the god. In fact, it makes things even more confusing, because it invokes a “supreme” being that in most religions is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being is so infinitely complex that the only way you can possibly explain its own existence is by claiming it was “always there”. Not only does this argument rely on speculation and blind faith, but you can easily turn it around and argue that the universe - in some form - was always there. Indeed, the same line of argument is used with Intelligent Design, and the same problem is reached; you simply cannot explain or give evidence for the “designer”. All things considered, it is far easier for me to believe that there was some perfectly natural cause for the universe than to suppose an infinitely complex being.

Another problem I find with the whole “god” idea is the contradictory nature of religion. It’s not just that there are several hundred religions all claiming to be the truth, or that all of them contradict each other in some way, but that each religion is internally inconsistent. Evangelicals like to claim that the Bible is supported by science, but it is simply not. The Bible has stayed roughly the same for generations; science has not. When a new scientific discovery threatens the “infallibility” of the Bible, one of two things can occur; either believers change the way they interpret passages so that the inconsistency is effectively removed, or they reject the entire scientific idea. Not all believers choose to do the same thing of course. This whole process of constantly updating religious texts to comply with science begs the ultimate question: If a god did exist, and these texts are supposedly its word, why was it so wrong in the first place? Have we really risen to such a high level that we are out-thinking an all-knowing god?

Finally, I see no logical reason for life to exist after death; a concept most religions like to advertise. Science tells us we really are just a bunch of atoms, and that even our consciousness can be explained with natural processes. I have no problem with that; I find it quite a humble view. In retrospect, I think our self-awareness is the cause of our fear, and subsequent fixation with death. Problems arise when one attempts to imagine what it is like not to think; it’s impossible to do by the very nature of thinking. So which is it? Was an afterlife created for us so we can live on, or did we create an afterlife to cope with our fears of death?