From PZ's Place: Gary Roberts, on Why I Am An Atheist:

[Note: I won’t be able to analyze all of the papers submitted to PZ, especially the ones that wax lengthily into autobiographies, as does this one. In this case I have plucked out the plums of Atheist reasoning from the forest of the text, and ignored the rest.]

"I began to realise that if you used the premise that there’s only one god, that your religion is the truth and that all others are false because it’s written so in your sacred book, then the same premise can also be used to explain a whole pantheon of gods (as was the case for pre-Christian Roman society, and even some extant religions such as Hinduism). How could one claim a monopoly on the truth, based on questionable revelation and dubious translation of ancient texts, when other religions could make an equally valid claim? This way of thinking seemed somehow intrinsically flawed."

Attacking the Bible, not Theism. The term “equally valid” indicates that Gary has not really examined the basis for other religions but has taken a prejudicial overview that all ecclesiastic claims are equally non-valid.

"I came to realise I had a problem with how divisive it was, how inhumane and uncaring many of its practitioners were in contrast to the central thrust of its teachings. If anything, religion and its followers were—in the main—more tribal and protective of their beliefs, rather than tolerant and compassionate towards others who held different, or opposing, views. And yet the basic tenets of these beliefs were supposedly based on compassion, and an adherence to a set of high moral standards and guidelines."

Attacking people with generalizations. That people don’t live up to its teachings, that is actually an expectation of the Biblical tenet of a fallen humanity. Regardless, the attack here has no bearing on the existence of a non-material being, which has the ability to create a universe.

However, it is important to note that the creed of tolerance is used to judge the behaviors of others rather than self, with this creed superceding all other principles. Tolerance is not a virtue when it requires tolerance of evil. So tolerance is not a firm principle, it is a rallying cry for those who think they are oppressed by moral tenets, as do homosexuals. Using tolerance as a tool of judgment is irrational, unless one first accepts that there is no evil, and there are no valid moral tenets.

But Atheists do not apply universal tolerance to themselves: There is evil in the world, and that is the reason that there is no God: evil by their definition is not to be tolerated, compassion notwithstanding.

Of course homosexuals would consider moral statements against their lifestyle as divisive. The only non-divisive morality is no morality at all, or declaring that morality includes all behaviors, regardless of what they are.

As a gay person trying to lead as good a life as possible and to help people in any way I could (not because a book told me to do so, but because it was in my very nature), I had a lot of trouble reconciling religion with basic human rights, to the extent that religion lost out in my eventual philosophy and interpretation of the world

Homosexuals naturally have problems with those who think that their lifestyle is aberrant, such as the pre-1970’s APA. His next statement reveals his reason for rejecting any and all authority over his lifestyle and worldview:

In short, I finally realised that I was living my life without religion or faith, and that it was okay to be that way. In fact it felt good, if not downright liberating, to be rid of the side effects of religion and dogma. Effects such as guilt or fear at having sinned. Not to mention the mind-numbing, expected obeisance to the Church in general and to God in particular

Freedom from responsibility for one’s actions is frequently a motivator to reject morality and its source. And note that this Atheist takes no pains to hide his overt rejection of God; he is not merely without a God theory. He experiences the feeling of freedom to engage in any activity without moral restraint. Whether that is real freedom or it is addiction to certain behaviors is not considered. Also not considered is the limit, if any, of such freedom: without any constraints where does freedom end and chaos start? And why would chaos not be a good thing, especially since it epitomizes freedom – without any constraints? We must be tolerant and compassionate regarding the agents of chaos, yes?

It is common to hear homosexuals take the position that morals are for restraining other people, but never themselves.

Independence and freethinking weren’t desirable traits amongst the flock, and certainly weren’t encouraged in any way, shape, or form by the priests in my childhood.

Since freethinking involves making up your own truths after rejecting all other standards, what would you expect?

That’s something I’d like to emphasize here. I know this isn’t how holders of such beliefs would see it, and that to them my way is anathema. But, however firmly they believe in their religion there are many millions of people who believe just as firmly in another, opposing religion.

The existence of other religions proves that none are true? It can’t be true because there are other opinions? In fact Atheism demonstrates otherwise: truth is not eliminated by Atheist denials that it exists. When Atheists declare that Atheism is true but there is no Truth, they live within the boundaries of their own paradox, their own non-coherence. It must be the case that at least one of those assertions is not the case, or: neither is the case. In fact, Atheism has no empirical evidence to support it, so it can’t be “true” in the Materialist sense. And truth can be demonstrated to exist by merely stepping in front of a semi tractor-trailer moving at the interstate highway speed limit – you truly will be hurt, and this forecast is true.

And the basis for their faith is almost entirely dependent upon the culture into which they were born and raised.

Not true; there are many converts in all areas which demonstrate otherwise. This is an attempt to assert that faith is mindless and that non-Atheists are stupid and without the capacity to reason toward truth. It's a classist thing.

Gary Roberts
Canada