The following was posted by an atheist on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth it's own thread.
Signal isn't an atheist. She would be more aptly characterized as an
agnostic theist, or at the very least an agnostic.
This section implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual atheist's. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation for his culpability for unbelief. For the atheist, ultimately we must trust that even he too is not beyond the reach of God's mercy if he strives to live morally.
I don't like to carry on about all the money I donate to good causes, the fact that I make very significant personal sacrifices to care for my aging Grandmother, the fact that I'm a very generous and not very materialistic person, that I'm open, honest, supportive, genuinely give a shit about a lot of things and believe that if one should have any goal in life it should be to strive to become a better person. I don't like to carry on about it because 1) I believe that this should be the
default standard anyway and 2) because I also have many faults. I can be selfish, dismissive, irritable, judgmental and exhibit a number of other not-so-desirable traits. But I believe that what truly defines a person is the path that they are making a genuine effort to remain on, in spite of their weaknesses.
In this way I am not essentially different from any good-hearted theist. In fact, as is rather obvious, theists themselves (collectively at least) can not be upheld as shining beacons of morality for the rest of us to emulate. My overarching point here is simply that I do not see the superior degree of basic goodness in religion that religion itself suggests that one should expect to find. To put it simply, theists don't seem to be "better" people at all.
So what it really all seems to boil down to then, at least in the case of something like Christianity anyway, is faith in God. You have it. I don't. All other things being equal (which they often are, or close enough anyway),
that is the only fundamental difference between someone who is said to be "saved" and someone who isn't. Let's explore some of the implications of this.
If I can be punished for lacking faith, then that implies that the fault lies with me. But how can I legitimately be held accountable for a lack of faith when, from my perspective at least, all the evidence in the world points to religion being nothing more than a man-made phenomenon; a collection of different attempts to make sense of the world thousands of years ago when we barely knew the first thing about it? Further, the provision of profoundly convincing positive evidence is certainly not without precedent in scripture itself, so the argument that it would somehow not be appropriate falls flat on it's face. Further still, since when does actually knowing that someone exists for a fact impede one's ability to love them? I mean seriously, can you really legitimately argue that you can no longer "choose" to continue to love and/or devote yourself to someone (let's talk non-romantic love here) because you have proof positive of their existence? Of course you can't. It's absurd.
A common assertion of theists however is that the real reason that atheists lack faith is not because of some benign philosophical difficulty, but because they are so steeped in sin, and so attached to a worldly existence, that they are blind and/or just don't want to give it up. It is even further suggested that it's not really a lack of faith at all, but an outright rejection. Of course this doesn't gel too well with the reality that there are plenty of people who are clearly just as steeped in sin, and attached to their worldly existence, yet still profess faith. Therefore I really don't think that this is a particularly insightful corollary if God is in fact real. Faith (or lack thereof) just really doesn't seem to be significantly linked to morality, or even worldliness.
To bring this to a close, if there is a God, and he/she/it condemns me to an eternally torturous existence
just because I didn't see how it was possible to legitimately reach the conclusion that he/she/it was in fact real, then so be it. Contrary to what many theists might preach, it really seems completely beyond my control, not to mention profoundly unjust. As Yazata once said, it would be the antithesis of mercy.
Now, let's sit back and watch the theists dismiss what I will forever maintain has been my genuine honesty as nothing more than the ramblings of someone who is desperately trying to justify their rejection of God.
